| Page Range | 48001-48233 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 48233 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations | |
| 80 FR 48131 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48114 - Findings of Research Misconduct; Correction | |
| 80 FR 48101 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; CEQ-EPA Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators Application | |
| 80 FR 48100 - Request for Information: Great Salt Lake Mercury Data | |
| 80 FR 48036 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia; Atlanta; Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard | |
| 80 FR 48051 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia; Atlanta; Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard | |
| 80 FR 48099 - Clean Water Act Class II: Proposed Administrative Settlement, Penalty Assessment and Opportunity To Comment Regarding Comcast Cable Communications, L.L.C. | |
| 80 FR 48033 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Washington | |
| 80 FR 48051 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky: New Sources in or Impacting Nonattainment Areas | |
| 80 FR 48120 - Maverick Tube Corporation; a Subsidiary of Tenaris S.A.; Houston, Texas; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 80 FR 48024 - Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Updating Regulations Governing HUD Fees and the Financing of the Purchase and Installation of Fire Safety Equipment in FHA-Insured Healthcare Facilities | |
| 80 FR 48118 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant Application | |
| 80 FR 48118 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: CDBG-DR Expenditure Deadline Extension Request Template (Pub. L. 113-2 Grantees Only) | |
| 80 FR 48075 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part | |
| 80 FR 48073 - Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 48072 - Approval of Subzone Status, Parapiezas Corporation, Cataño, Puerto Rico | |
| 80 FR 48073 - Approval of Expansion of Subzone 22N; Michelin North America, Inc.; Wilmington, Illinois | |
| 80 FR 48073 - Approval of Subzone Status; Autogermana, Inc.; San Juan, Puerto Rico | |
| 80 FR 48115 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48115 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48136 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Orders 13224 | |
| 80 FR 48137 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Orders 13382 and 13551 | |
| 80 FR 48138 - Agency Information Collection (Application for Fee or Roster Personnel Designation, VA Form 26-6681) Activity Under OMB Review | |
| 80 FR 48041 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2015 Recreational Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Golden Tilefish | |
| 80 FR 48070 - Notice of Availability of Treatment Evaluation Documents and Supplemental Environmental Assessment for Pesticide Use for the Imported Fire Ant Program | |
| 80 FR 48071 - Feral Swine Damage Management Final Environmental Impact Statement; Record of Decision | |
| 80 FR 48002 - Importation of Fresh Unshu Oranges From Japan Into the United States; Technical Amendment | |
| 80 FR 48001 - Amendment of Asian Longhorned Beetle Quarantine Areas in Massachusetts and New York | |
| 80 FR 48103 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 48093 - Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues Related to New Alternatives Under Consideration | |
| 80 FR 48092 - Liquid Sun Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 80 FR 48095 - Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 80 FR 48098 - Eugene Water & Electric Board; Notice Soliciting Comments on Request for Stay of Licensing Decision | |
| 80 FR 48088 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 80 FR 48087 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 80 FR 48098 - Energy Power Investment Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 48092 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 80 FR 48090 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Triad Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 80 FR 48097 - LNG Development Company, LLC; Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC; Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project and Washington Expansion Project | |
| 80 FR 48089 - Combined Notice of Filings #3 | |
| 80 FR 48089 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 48088 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 48113 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Irradiation in the Production, Processing and Handling of Food | |
| 80 FR 48043 - Petition Requesting Rulemaking on Supplemental Mattresses for Play Yards With Non-Rigid Sides | |
| 80 FR 48125 - Submission for Review: Annuity Supplement Earnings Report, RI 92-22, 3206-0194 | |
| 80 FR 48087 - Proposed Agency Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 48086 - Notice of Renewal of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 48086 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford | |
| 80 FR 48112 - Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (BSC, NCEH/ATSDR) | |
| 80 FR 48138 - Proposed Information Collection-Statement of Accredited Representative in Appealed Case; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48078 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request: Alaska Community Quota Entity (CQE) Program | |
| 80 FR 48078 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48072 - Notice of Petitions by Firms For Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 80 FR 48113 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Regulations Under the Federal Import Milk Act | |
| 80 FR 48103 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 48105 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 48079 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48078 - Evaluation of State Coastal Management Program | |
| 80 FR 48112 - Patient Safety Organizations: Expired Listing for McGuckin Methods International, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 48105 - Scientific Information Request on Omega 3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease-Update | |
| 80 FR 48107 - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality | |
| 80 FR 48110 - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48104 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48044 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Eluxadoline Into Schedule IV | |
| 80 FR 48080 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 80 FR 48122 - Affirmative Decisions on Petitions for Modification Granted in Whole or in Part | |
| 80 FR 48114 - National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48116 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48128 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48131 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48129 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Modify the Securities That Are Subject to the NYSE Amex Options Market Maker Premium Product Fees | |
| 80 FR 48125 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, To List and Trade Shares of the Reaves Utilities ETF of ETFis Series Trust I | |
| 80 FR 48132 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Discontinue the Market Access and Connectivity Subsidy | |
| 80 FR 48132 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48004 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Definitions and Standards for Grid-Enabled Water Heaters | |
| 80 FR 48119 - Notice of September 14, 2015, Meeting for Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission | |
| 80 FR 48119 - Notice of September 14, 2015, Meeting for Acadia National Park Advisory Commission | |
| 80 FR 48117 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Cargo Container and Road Vehicle Certification for Transport Under Customs Seal | |
| 80 FR 48070 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48124 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 48102 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 80 FR 48120 - Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence | |
| 80 FR 48121 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Guam Military Base Realignment Contractors Recruitment Standards | |
| 80 FR 48120 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Temporary Labor Camps Standard | |
| 80 FR 48134 - WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States-Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Certain Coated Paper From Indonesia | |
| 80 FR 48134 - Iowa Disaster #IA-00064 | |
| 80 FR 48123 - NASA International Space Station Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48096 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 80 FR 48116 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48114 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48115 - Fogarty International Center; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48136 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review; Bank Appeals Follow-Up Questionnaire | |
| 80 FR 48081 - Applications for New Awards; Rehabilitation Training-Technical Assistance Center for Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance | |
| 80 FR 48028 - Final Priority-Technical Assistance Center for Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance | |
| 80 FR 48061 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the Bigeye Thresher Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act | |
| 80 FR 48053 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Smooth Hammerhead Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act | |
| 80 FR 48010 - Capital Planning and Stress Testing-Schedule Shift | |
| 80 FR 48022 - Airworthiness Directives; Kidde Graviner | |
| 80 FR 48003 - Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions Correcting Amendment | |
| 80 FR 48142 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Diplacus vandenbergensis (Vandenberg Monkeyflower) | |
| 80 FR 48018 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines | |
| 80 FR 48013 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 48172 - Fish and Fish Product Import Provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act | |
| 80 FR 48019 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 48200 - Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Interim rule and request for comments.
We are amending the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) regulations by removing the boroughs of Manhattan and Staten Island in New York City, as well as the counties of Suffolk and Norfolk in Massachusetts, from the list of quarantined areas for ALB. These actions are necessary to relieve restrictions on the movement of regulated articles from areas no longer under ALB quarantine while preventing the artificial spread of ALB from infested areas to noninfested areas of the United States.
This interim rule is effective August 11, 2015. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 10, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Regulations, Permits and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2352;
The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB,
In accordance with § 301.51-3(a) of the regulations, quarantined areas are, with certain exceptions, those States or portions of States in which ALB has been found by an inspector, in which the Administrator has reason to believe that ALB is present, or that the Administrator considers necessary to regulate because of its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from localities where ALB has been found. Less than an entire State will be designated as a quarantined area only if (1) The Administrator determines that the State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles that are equivalent to those imposed on the interstate movement of regulated articles; and (2) the designation of less than an entire State as a quarantined area will be adequate to prevent the artificial interstate spread of ALB.
On May 14, 2013, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a Federal Order
Therefore, in this interim rule, we are amending the regulations in § 301.51-3(c) by removing the boroughs of Manhattan and Staten Island in New York City and the counties of Suffolk and Norfolk in Massachusetts from the list of areas quarantined for ALB. This action will relieve restrictions on the movement of regulated articles from areas no longer under ALB quarantine.
Immediate action is warranted to relieve restrictions on the movement of regulated articles for ALB in the boroughs of Manhattan and Staten Island in New York City and the counties of Suffolk and Norfolk in Massachusetts. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see
This interim rule is subject to Executive Order 12866. However, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. The full analysis may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see
APHIS is amending the ALB regulations by removing the boroughs of Manhattan and Staten Island in New York City and Suffolk and Norfolk Counties, MA, from the list of areas quarantined for ALB.
For more than 400 establishments located in the boroughs of Manhattan and Staten Island in New York City, as well as nearly 250 establishments in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk in Massachusetts, the interim rule will have a positive impact by allowing all entities that previously had compliance agreements with APHIS to again offer services and move regulated articles without APHIS inspections or other time constraints resulting from the quarantine. The majority of these entities are nursery dealers.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 301 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
The revision reads as follows:
(c) * * *
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule; technical amendment.
In a final rule published in the
Effective August 11, 2015.
Mr. David Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2103.
In a final rule
As a result of the rule, APHIS believed that its presence in Japan to help oversee the export program for Unshu oranges to the United States was no longer necessary. Accordingly, we recalled inspectors assigned to that program to the United States.
However, our final rule retained provisions in the regulations that required Unshu oranges imported from Shikoku and Honshu Islands in Japan to be fumigated with methyl bromide in accordance with 7 CFR part 305 after harvest and prior to export to the United States, if the oranges are to be imported into Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, or Texas, all of which have significant commercial citrus production. We also retained provisions of the regulations that prohibited Unshu oranges from Shikoku or Honshu Island that have not been fumigated with methyl bromide in accordance with 7 CFR part 305 from being imported into Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, or Texas.
Within part 305, § 305.4 requires any treatment performed outside of the United States to be monitored and certified by inspector or an official authorized by APHIS, and further provides that all treatments are subject to monitoring and verification by APHIS.
As a matter of APHIS policy, we currently require chemical treatments performed outside the United States to be monitored and certified by APHIS inspectors and do not authorize other officials to perform such functions in our absence. Accordingly, when we recalled APHIS inspectors assigned to the export program for Unshu oranges to the United States from Japan, we effectively precluded Shikoku and Honshu Islands from administering the methyl bromide treatment required by the regulations for citrus destined to Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, or Texas. We thus inadvertently prohibited the two islands from shipping Unshu oranges to those States.
This was not our intent. Therefore, we are amending the regulations to allow Unshu oranges from Shikoku or Honshu Islands to be fumigated with methyl bromide at the port of entry into Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, or Texas. We are also amending the regulations to allow such oranges to be shipped to Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, or Texas without prior methyl bromide fumigation, provided that they are fumigated at the port of entry in Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, or Texas.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
(b) * * *
(6) To be eligible for importation into Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, or Texas, each shipment of oranges grown on Honshu Island or Shikoku Island, Japan, must be fumigated with methyl bromide in accordance with part 305 of this chapter either after harvest and prior to exportation to the United States, or upon arrival at the port of entry in Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, or Texas. Fumigation will not be required for shipments of oranges grown on Honshu Island or Shikoku Island, Japan, that are to be imported into States other than Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, or Texas.
(8) * * *
(ii)(A) Unshu oranges from Honshu Island or Shikoku Island, Japan, may not be imported into American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
(B) Unshu oranges from Kyushu Island, Japan (Prefectures of Fukuoka, Kumanmoto, Nagasaki, and Saga only) that have not been fumigated in accordance with part 305 of this chapter may not be imported into American Samoa, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Texas, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This document contains necessary amendments for addressing potential ambiguities in the final regulation for Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions, which was published on April 16, 2015 (80 FR 20407-20413).
This rule is effective August 11, 2015.
Tim Hoffmann, Director, Product Administration and Standards Division,
The final regulation subject to this amendment revised the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions. The final regulation was published April 16, 2015 (80 FR 20407-20413).
As published, language in the final regulation for Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions may require clarification to ensure proper application of the policy provisions. Sections 11(b)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions may lack information or explanation needed to properly calculate an indemnity. Section 11(b)(3)(ii)(A) has been clarified to note that the result in this provision must also be multiplied by 100 to clearly represent the percentage of destroyed trees. Section 11(b)(3)(ii)(B) states the loss adjuster must take the number of damaged trees and divide by the total number of trees to calculate the percent of damage. However, the loss adjuster must also determine the percent of damage for each damaged tree within the overall loss calculation formula, when at least some damage (rather than solely complete destruction) is at issue. As a result, a description of specific additional steps is necessary under section 11(b)(3)(ii)(B) to clarify this issue.
In addition, section 11(c)(1) of the Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions was revised to change the provision from ” . . . over 80 percent actual damage due to an insured cause of loss will be considered to be 100 percent damaged” to ” . . . over 80 percent of the actual trees damaged or destroyed due to an insured cause of loss will be considered to be 100 percent damaged . . . ” This change may have appeared to require the loss adjuster to determine whether the orchard was damaged more than 80 percent solely by counting the number of trees damaged or destroyed, without calculating the actual damage to individual trees. That application was not FCIC's intent. It is FCIC's intent that actual damage to each individual tree, in addition to the total number and percentage of actual damaged trees, are both used among other factors (such as destroyed trees when applicable) to determine whether the orchard is damaged more than 80 percent.
Crop insurance, Macadamia tree, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Amendment of publication.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 457 is amended by making the following correcting amendments:
7 U.S.C. 1506(1) and 1506(o).
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) For destroyed trees, divide the number of trees destroyed by the total number of trees and multiply by 100 to calculate the percent of loss;
(B) For damaged trees:
(c) * * *
(1) Any orchard with damage, destruction, or combined damage and destruction, that results in a total percent of loss greater than 80 percent due to an insured cause of loss will be considered to be 100 percent damaged and/or destroyed; and
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
Congress created a new definition and energy conservation standard for grid-enabled water heaters in the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, which amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA). The Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing this final rule to place in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) the energy conservation standards, and related definitions, and to explain its interpretation of the new language. This final rule will implement these amendments to EPCA.
Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:
Ms. Johanna Hariharan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email:
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority DOE is interpreting in this rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for residential water heaters.
Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (EEIA 2015) (Pub. L. 114-11-210) was enacted on April 30, 2015. Among other things, Title II of EEIA 2015 adds the definition of “grid-enabled water heaters” to EPCA's energy conservation standards for residential water heaters. These products are intended for use as part of an electric thermal storage or demand response program. Among the criteria that define “grid-enabled water heaters” is an energy-related performance standard that is either an energy factor specified by a formula set forth in the statute, or an equivalent alternative standard that DOE may prescribe. In addition, EEIA's amendments to EPCA direct DOE to require reporting on shipments and activations of grid-enabled water heaters and to establish procedures, if appropriate, to prevent product diversion for non-program purposes.
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for residential water heaters and directed DOE to conduct rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), DOE must also periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for a covered product. Under this requirement, DOE would need to undertake its periodic review no later than six years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product.
On April 16, 2010, DOE published a final rule in the
Table I.11 presents the Federal energy conservation standards for residential water heaters, amended in the April 2010 final rule, which are set forth in 10 CFR 430.32(d).
After DOE issued the April 2010 final rule, several stakeholders expressed concern about April 2010 final rule's effect on electric thermal storage (ETS) programs. Utilities use ETS programs, sometimes also known as load shifting or demand response programs, to manage peak demand load by limiting the times when certain appliances are
Stakeholders told the Department that large-volume water heaters are important for water heater-based ETS programs because a larger-volume product permits the storage of enough hot water to satisfy a consumer's needs through the peak hours. Utility companies also asserted that ETS programs are feasible only with electric resistance water heaters, as opposed to heat pump water heaters. In light of these two conditions, stakeholders said, the April 2010 final rule could impair water heater-based ETS programs because the rule effectively precludes the manufacture of large-volume electric resistance heaters. The minimum energy factor that the Department set for electric water heaters above 55 gallons is higher than electric resistance heaters can meet.
In February 2013, DOE proposed a rule that would have established a mechanism for utilities and water heater manufacturers to request exemptions from the new standards for large-volume electric water heaters. The Department then commissioned studies of the performance of electric heaters with heat pumps (a technology capable of satisfying the new standard) in ETS programs. After receiving reports that concluded heat pumps are technically feasible in existing ETS programs, the Department withdrew its proposed rule on April 3, 2015.
Congress enacted EEIA 2015 to address the use of large capacity electric resistance water heaters in thermal storage and demand response systems operated by electric utilities. Specifically, EEIA 2015 amended EPCA to establish a category of water heater called “grid enabled water heaters.” As detailed below, a “grid enabled water heater” is defined as an electric resistance water heater made after April 16, 2015, with a tank over 75 gallons, an activation lock installed at manufacture, and a label. The water heater must also satisfy an energy-efficiency criterion—either an “energy factor” determined by a certain formula or “an equivalent alternative standard prescribed by the Secretary and developed pursuant to” 42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(5)(E). A manufacturer can provide the activation key for a grid-enabled heater only to a utility using it in a thermal storage or demand response program. In addition, DOE is to require manufacturers to report data on their sales of grid-enabled heaters, and the Department can in appropriate circumstances establish procedures to prevent product diversion for non-program purposes. These provisions regarding grid-enabled water heaters will remain in effect unless and until DOE determines that they do not require a separate efficiency requirement or that efforts to prevent diversion of the water heaters are ineffective. Finally, in making standards in general for electric water heaters, DOE must consider the impact on thermal storage and demand response programs.
While not explicit on the face of the statute, DOE interprets EEIA 2015 as having established a category of water heaters subject to their own energy conservation standard. It is apparent that Congress intended to ensure the continued availability of certain large capacity electric resistance water heaters for use in utility operated thermal storage and demand response programs. To do so, Congress defined a separate grouping of water heaters for this use and stated the energy conservation standard that would be applicable to water heaters in this group. Congress also made clear that DOE is to monitor that such water heaters are used only for the purpose stated and that DOE could take steps to address diversion to other uses of water heaters within this category, including a determination that separate energy conservation standards are no longer necessary.
In that Congress clearly intended to ensure continued availability of certain large capacity water heaters for use in ETS and demand response programs, DOE notes that its interpretation of EEIA 2015 is consistent with the intended outcome of its earlier rulemaking. DOE's existing standards, which took effect on April 16, 2015, would require a residential electric resistance water heater with a capacity over 55 gallons to have an energy factor that is currently achievable for an electric heater only by using heat pump technology, and not solely by use of electric resistance elements. Stakeholders had told DOE they considered large-capacity electric resistance heaters important for ETS programs and urged DOE to amend the standard to permit continued manufacture of the heaters for that purpose. As such, Congress enacted EEIA 2015 to remedy this issue through establishing a separate grouping of water heaters, ensuring that grid-enabled water heaters would be used only for ETS programs.
Table I.2 presents the below presents the new standards Congress laid out in EEIA 2015 for grid-enabled water heaters.
DOE is placing the new energy conservation standards and related definitions for grid-enabled water heaters into 10 CFR part 430 (“Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products”). This final rule codifies EEIA 2015, which established the energy conservation standards for grid-enabled water heaters on April 30, 2015 to permit the continued manufacture of grid-enabled water heaters after that date, provided the water heaters meet the criteria established in the amendment. DOE is also explaining its interpretation of some of the new language in EPCA regarding grid-enabled water heaters. DOE reads the new provisions as establishing a category of water heaters called “grid-enabled water heaters” and setting an energy conservation standard for those products. DOE notes that continued manufacture of grid-enabled water heaters has been legal under EPCA since April 30, 2015, and that this notice simply places that language into DOE's codified regulations. This notice also provides a summary of the amendments
The EEIA 2015 amendments to EPCA became effective on April 30, 2015. The new provisions constitute the new 42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(6), appended to the subsection that details the standards program for residential water heaters. As amended, EPCA defines a “grid-enabled water heater” as an electric resistance water heater that:
(I) Has a rated storage tank volume of more than 75 gallons;
(II) is manufactured on or after April 16, 2015;
(III) has an energy factor of not less than 1.061 minus the product of 0.00168 times the tank's rated storage volume (in gallons); or an equivalent alternative standard prescribed by the Secretary and developed pursuant to paragraph (5)(E);
(IV) is equipped at the point of manufacture with an activation lock; and
(V) has a label meeting certain criteria for permanence and states, using text set by the statute, that the water heater is intended only for use as part of an electric thermal storage or demand response program.
DOE at this time declines to develop such an equivalent standard through a lengthy notice and comment rulemaking process, and is therefore codifying the standard established in § 6295(e)(6)(A)(ii)(III)(aa) as an energy factor of not less than 1.061 minus the product of 0.00168 times the tank's rated storage volume (in gallons).
EPCA, as amended, also defines an “activation lock” as a control mechanism that is locked by default and must be activated with an activation key to enable the product to operate at its designed specifications and capabilities. A manufacturer can provide the activation key for the activation lock on a grid-enabled heater only to a utility or other company that operates an electric thermal storage or demand response program that uses such grid-enabled water heater.
EPCA also mandates the Department to require each grid-enabled water heater manufacturer to report annually the quantity of grid-enabled water heaters shipped each year. Likewise, operators of demand response and/or thermal storage systems must report the quantity of grid-enabled water heaters that are activated, using Energy Information Agency (EIA) forms, or another mechanism that DOE creates through a notice-and-comment rulemaking. At this time, DOE declines to develop another mechanism through a notice-and-comment rulemaking. DOE must treat all information received under these provisions as confidential business information.
The EEIA 2015 instructs the Department to publish in 2017 and 2019 analyses of the manufacturer and operator data to assess the extent to which shipped products are put into use in demand response and thermal storage programs. If DOE finds that sales of the products exceed by 15 percent or greater the numbers activated annually, it can establish procedures to prevent product diversion for non-program purposes.
Pursuant to EEIA 2015, the preceding provisions remain in effect until the Secretary determines that grid-enabled water heaters do not require a separate efficiency requirement or that sales exceed activations by more than 15 percent and procedures to prevent product diversion for non-program purposes would not be adequate. The statute also states that in carrying out this section with respect to electric water heaters, DOE must consider the impact on thermal storage and demand response programs. DOE is to require that grid-enabled water heaters be equipped with communication capability to participate in ancillary services programs if such technology is available, practical, and cost-effective.
EEIA 2015 also amended EPCA's list of prohibited acts in 42 U.S.C. 6302(a) to include additional authority for DOE to enforce standards for grid-enabled water heaters so they are used exclusively in ETS programs. Under EPCA, certain actions, including activating an activation lock, distributing an activation key, or otherwise enabling a grid-enabled water heater to operate, with the knowledge that the grid-enabled water heater will not be used as part of an electric thermal storage or demand response program. In addition, removing a grid-enabled water heater label, or rendering it unintelligible, is also prohibited.
This final rule provides DOE's interpretation of EEIA 2015, and is not subject to the requirement to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). To the extent that this final rule codifies, verbatim, EEIA 2015, DOE finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment as such procedure is unnecessary in that DOE has no authority to amend the statute.
This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, DOE is not required under section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order to prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) on today's rule and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is not required to review this rule.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Manufacturers of residential water heaters, including grid-enabled water heaters, must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for residential water heaters, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including residential water heaters. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
The Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 also requires manufacturers of grid-enabled water heaters to report to DOE annually the quantity of grid-enabled water heaters that the manufacturer ships each year. It also requires operators of demand response and/or thermal storage systems to report annually the quantity of grid-enabled water heaters activated for their programs.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, DOE has determined that the rule fits within the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The rule fits within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that clarifies the applicability of energy conservation standards for consumer products, and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this rule. DOE's CX determination for this proposed rule is available at
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of today's final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section
This final rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, and will not require expenditures of $100 million or more on the private sector. Accordingly, no further action is required under the UMRA.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This final rule would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and, therefore, is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions. 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The “Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report” dated February 2007 has been disseminated and is available at the following Web site:
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of chapter II, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(1) Has a rated storage tank volume of more than 75 gallons;
(2) Is manufactured on or after April 16, 2015;
(3) Is equipped at the point of manufacture with an activation lock and;
(4) Bears a permanent label applied by the manufacturer that—
(i) Is made of material not adversely affected by water;
(ii) Is attached by means of non-water-soluble adhesive; and
(iii) Advises purchasers and end-users of the intended and appropriate use of the product with the following notice printed in 16.5 point Arial Narrow Bold font: “IMPORTANT INFORMATION: This water heater is intended only for use as part of an electric thermal storage or demand response program. It will not provide adequate hot water unless enrolled in such a program and activated by your utility company or another program operator. Confirm the availability of a program in your local area before purchasing or installing this product.”
(d)
(2)
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Final rule.
The NCUA Board (Board) is issuing amendments to the regulation governing credit union capital planning and stress testing. The amendments adjust the timing of certain events in the capital planning and stress testing cycles. The revisions to the regulation become effective January 1, 2016.
The final rule is effective January 1, 2016.
Marvin Shaw, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 or telephone (703) 518-6553; or Jeremy Taylor or Dale Klein, Senior Capital Markets Specialists, Office of National Examinations and Supervision, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6640.
In April 2014, the Board issued a final rule requiring capital planning and stress testing for federally insured credit unions (FICUs) with assets of $10
The April 2014 final rule provided several timeframes for the formulation and submission of capital plans and for the stress testing of covered credit unions. One critical date in the stress testing process is the date NCUA releases the baseline, adverse, and severely adverse economic scenarios that serve as basis for the testing. NCUA plans to base the scenarios on those developed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (collectively, the banking agencies) for their regulated institutions.
On January 26, 2015, the Board issued a proposal to adjust the timing of certain events in NCUA's capital planning and stress testing cycles.
NCUA received eight comments on the proposal to modify the capital planning and stress testing requirements, including comments from national trade associations, a state credit union league, federal credit unions, and federally insured, state-chartered credit unions. All commenters stated that they understood the need for the rule and that it is appropriate for NCUA to be consistent with the banking agencies' capital planning and stress testing requirements.
Nevertheless, commenters objected to what they considered to be a “compressed” capital planning schedule set out in the proposal. The commenters objected on various grounds, including that the capital planning process is complex and that a credit union would need input from senior management and the credit union's board of directors on stress testing and capital planning. Further, commenters stated that an as-of date of December 31, a date which triggers numerous other reporting requirements, would result in logistical and resource allocation problems. Commenters' primary objection was that they believed the schedule would be compressed if capital plans were due on April 30 (
Seven commenters also noted that the proposed April 30 due date for capital plans is only two months after the scenario release date of February 28. These commenters contended that much capital planning activity could only begin after the scenario release date. However, capital planning is an activity distinct from stress testing and thus a credit union subject to part 702 can and should begin its capital planning activities well before the release of the stress test scenarios. A covered credit union's capital planning should be part of long-term strategic planning formulated on the basis of the credit union's business purposes and risk exposures.
Nevertheless, the Board understands that covered credit unions may want to know what scenarios concern regulators before completing their annual capital planning process. Accordingly, after reviewing the comments, this final rule amends the capital planning and stress testing rule in part 702 to establish a due date of May 31 rather than April 30 for covered credit unions to submit their capital plans. This change will provide covered credit unions with five months from the as-of date (and three months from the scenario release date) to prepare their capital plans, as commenters requested.
The Board acknowledges that covered credit unions may encounter resource constraints prior to putting in place independent risk management and reporting functions. NCUA also expects that some credit unions currently under the $10 billion threshold will grow larger than $10 billion, and the Board does not want to impose undue regulatory burden on these newly covered credit unions.
One commenter requested that the Board move the scenario release date to be earlier than February 28. However, this would not allow NCUA reasonable time to review the scenarios released by the banking agencies. The Board has therefore retained the February 28 release date.
Several commenters requested that other milestone dates in capital planning and stress testing be modified to reflect the new May 31 deadline for the capital plan submission. The Board agrees with these comments and has adjusted the revised annual capital planning and stress testing timelines in Table 1 to reflect the shift from April 30 to May 31. Each other date in the timeline is adjusted accordingly.
The following table summarizes the changes to the annual timelines provided in the capital and stress testing rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis of any significant economic impact any regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities (primarily those under $50 million in assets). Because this final rule only applies to FICUs with $10 billion or more in assets, it will not have any economic impact on small credit unions.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or increases an existing burden.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. The rule does 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. NCUA has, therefore, determined that the rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
NCUA has determined that this rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of § 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed above, the National Credit Union Administration amends 12 CFR part 702 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1766(a), 1790d.
(a)
(a)
(b) * * *
(5) unacceptable weakness in the capital plan or policy, the capital planning analysis, or any critical system or process supporting capital analysis;
(d)
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(c)
(d)
(1) Losses, pre-provision net revenues, loan and lease loss provisions, and net income; and
(2) The potential impact on the stress test capital ratio, incorporating the effects of any capital action over the 9-quarter stress test horizon and maintenance of an allowance for loan losses appropriate for credit exposures throughout the horizon. NCUA or the covered credit union will conduct the stress tests without assuming any risk mitigation actions on the part of the covered credit union, except those existing and identified as part of the covered credit union's balance sheet, or off-balance sheet positions, such as asset sales or derivatives positions, on the date of the stress test.
(e)
(f)
(g)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-19-11 for certain The Boeing Company Model 737 airplanes. AD 2012-19-11 required incorporating design changes to improve the reliability of the cabin altitude warning system by installing a redundant cabin altitude pressure switch, replacing the aural warning module (AWM) with a new or reworked AWM, and changing certain wire bundles or connecting certain previously capped and stowed wires as necessary. For certain airplanes, AD 2012-19-11 also required prior or concurrent incorporation of related design changes by modifying the instrument panels, installing light assemblies, modifying the wire bundles, and installing a new circuit breaker, as necessary. This AD was prompted by the report of a flightcrew not receiving an aural warning during a lack-of-cabin pressurization event. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of cabin altitude warning, which could delay flightcrew recognition of a lack of cabin pressurization, and could result in incapacitation of the flightcrew due to hypoxia (a lack of oxygen in the body), and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
This AD is effective September 15, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 15, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of November 7, 2012 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-917-6596; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012). AD 2012-19-11
The NPRM was prompted by the report of a flightcrew not receiving an aural warning during a lack of cabin pressurization event. The NPRM proposed to continue to require incorporating design changes to improve the reliability of the cabin altitude warning system by installing a redundant cabin altitude pressure switch, replacing the AWM with a new or reworked AWM, and changing certain wire bundles or connecting certain previously capped and stowed wires as necessary.
For certain airplanes, the NPRM proposed to continue to require prior or concurrent incorporation of related design changes by modifying the instrument panels, installing light assemblies, modifying the wire bundles, and installing a new circuit breaker, as necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require, for certain airplanes, incorporating related design changes. The NPRM also proposed, for certain airplanes, to no longer give credit for the prior accomplishment of certain actions. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of cabin altitude warning, which could delay flightcrew recognition of a lack of cabin pressurization, and could result in incapacitation of the flightcrew due to hypoxia (a lack of oxygen in the body), and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 43983, July 29, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing requested that the proposed rule (79 FR 43983, July 29, 2014) incorporate Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2014, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, Revision 2, dated June 5, 2014. Boeing stated that it has released new service information and the service information should be reflected in the proposed rule.
We agree with the commenter's request to reference the latest service information. We have revised this final rule accordingly.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, Revision 2, dated June 5, 2014, updates reference document names, corrects typographical errors, and includes airplanes that were removed in error in an earlier revision of the service information. The procedures remain unchanged. In addition, we have added paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, to give credit for previous actions, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, dated January 11, 2010, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, Revision 1, dated July 5, 2012.
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2014, includes configuration differences found by operators during incorporation of earlier revisions of the service information. The procedures otherwise remain unchanged.
An anonymous commenter requested to add an exception to the proposed rule (79 FR 43983, July 29, 2014). The commenter stated that paragraphs (j)(2) and (j)(3) of the proposed AD should include the same exceptions for group 24 through 25 airplanes, and group 27 through 33 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 4, dated October 31, 2013.
The commenter also stated that paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3) of AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012), did not give credit for previous actions for group 24 through 25 airplanes, and group 27 through 33 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012. The commenter stated that this is because paragraph 1.C. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012, explicitly states that changes given in figures 48 through 50 affect wiring changes previously accomplished in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-24A1141; also figures 15 through 17, and airplane line numbers 1 through 740, are moved to a new group 24 through 25 airplanes, and group 27 through 33 airplanes.
The commenter stated that if an airplane is identified in groups 24 through 25 airplanes, and group 27 through 33 airplanes, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 4, dated October 31, 2013, the operator can take credit for previous actions accomplished using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010. Therefore, the commenter stated that the operator must, per the exceptions of paragraphs (i)(2) or (i)(3) of AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012), re-comply with the proposed AD once the additional actions are taken.
We disagree with the commenter's request. This AD corrects an error in paragraph (i) of AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012). In AD 2012-19-11, airplanes were identified incorrectly as having wiring instructions that may conflict with the corrective actions of AD 2009-16-07, Amendment 39-15990 (74 FR 41607, August 18, 2009). Further, this AD supersedes (
United Airlines (UAL) requested that the compliance time for the proposed rule (79 FR 43983, July 29, 2014) be extended a minimum of 1 year for all airplanes. UAL stated that this is due to the increased scope of required testing not documented in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 2, dated April 30, 2012. UAL commented that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 2, dated April 30, 2012, is for the removal of the junction box 46, and additional administrative time is required during the accomplishment of each airplane for obtaining an alternate method of compliance (AMOC).
UAL commented that due to the removal of junction box 46, 43 additional operational checks must be accomplished and are estimated to take an additional 30 hours of elapsed time for each airplane. UAL stated that the estimated costs of the proposed rule (79 FR 43983, July 29, 2014) should be revised to include an additional 30 hours for testing.
UAL also stated that multiple AMOCs have been required for the concurrent requirements and for airplanes affected by AD 2013-02-05, Amendment 39-17326 (78 FR 6202, January 30, 2013) due to errors in the Boeing data. UAL stated that the time necessary to seek approved AMOCs extends the completion time of each airplane beyond the time allotted in the estimated costs and can result in the airplanes being out of service.
We disagree with the commenter's request. Boeing has provided its work estimates based on average times for accomplishing its service information specifically to correct the unsafe condition. The time spent to perform additional functional checks and testing to systems incidentally associated with the unsafe condition in this AD and any associated administrative actions in carrying out all work (related to this AD) will vary among operators. Additionally, we do not consider the time spent processing AMOCs when we determine estimated costs of an AD because of the variable occurrences, scope of technical deviations, and elective nature of many AMOC requests.
The estimate of labor hours provides only a guideline for operators, and operators are encouraged to review all relevant work steps to create time and cost estimates specific to their schedules and work processes. Operators that request AMOCs while their airplane is in maintenance do not have to wait for the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) approval before they can return the airplane to service, provided the 72-month compliance time has not passed, and operators do not claim compliance credit in their maintenance records until the AMOC is received. As long as the 72-month compliance time has not been exceeded, an AMOC is not needed; therefore, requests for compliance time extensions and Seattle ACO responses to early AMOC requests have no effect on returning an airplane to service from an operator's maintenance cycle.
We base AD compliance times primarily on our assessment of safety risk. We consider the overall risk to the fleet, including the severity of the failure and the likelihood of the failure's occurrence in development of the compliance time for the ADs. We work with the respective manufacturers to ensure that all appropriate instructions and parts are available at the appropriate time to meet our collective safety goals, and that those goals are based on safety of the fleet. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per STC ST01219SE or ST00830SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 43983, July 29, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 43983, July 29, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed the following service information:
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, Revision 2, dated June 5, 2014.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 4, dated October 31, 2013.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 2, dated August 23, 2013.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2014.
The service information describe procedures for incorporating design changes to improve the reliability of the cabin altitude warning system by installing a redundant cabin altitude pressure switch, replacing the AWM with a new or reworked AWM, and changing certain wire bundles or connecting certain previously capped and stowed wires as necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 1,618 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII,
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective September 15, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300,—400, and -500 series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 2, dated August 23, 2013.
(2) Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2014.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air Conditioning.
This AD was prompted by the report of a flightcrew not receiving an aural warning during a lack of cabin pressurization event. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of cabin altitude warning, which could delay flightcrew recognition of a lack of cabin pressurization, and could result in incapacitation of the flightcrew due to hypoxia (a lack of oxygen in the body), and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (g) of AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012), with revised service information. Within 72 months after November 7, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-19-11), install a redundant cabin altitude pressure switch, replace the aural warning module (AWM) with a new or reworked AWM, and change certain wire bundles or connect certain capped and stowed wires, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD; except as provided by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
(1) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 2, dated August 23, 2013 (for Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes). As of the effective date of this AD, use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 2, dated August 23, 2013, for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 2, dated April 30, 2012; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2014 (for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes). As of the effective date of this AD use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2014.
This paragraph restates the concurrent actions required by paragraph (h) of AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012), with revised service information. For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, dated January 11, 2010 (for Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes); and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012 (for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes); except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD: Before or concurrently with accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable, modify the instrument panels, install light assemblies, modify the wire bundles, and install a new circuit breaker, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD; except as provided by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
(1) The service information for Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes as identified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii), of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, Revision 2, dated June 5, 2014 (for Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes), for the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, dated January 11, 2010.
(ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, Revision 1, dated July 5, 2012.
(iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, Revision 2, dated June 5, 2014.
(2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 4, dated October 31, 2013 (for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes). As of the effective date of this AD, use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 4, dated October 31, 2013 (for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes), for the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
For airplanes having variable numbers YA001 through YA008 inclusive, YA251, YA501 through YA508 inclusive, and YC321 through YC325 inclusive: Before or concurrently with accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, modify the instrument panels, install light assemblies, modify the wire bundles, and install a new circuit breaker, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 4, dated October 31, 2013.
(1) This paragraph restates the credit for previous actions stated in paragraph (i) of AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012), with correct paragraph reference and revised exempted airplanes.
(i) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before November 7, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012)), using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2012-19-11.
(ii) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010; except airplanes having variable numbers YA001 through YA019 inclusive, YA201 through YA203 inclusive, YA231 through YA242 inclusive, YA251, YA252, YA271, YA272, YA301, YA302, YA311, YA312, YA501 through YA508 inclusive, YA541, YA701, YA702, YC001 through YC007 inclusive, YC051, YC052, YC101, YC102, YC111, YC121, YC301, YC302, YC321 through YC330 inclusive, YC381, YC401 through YC403 inclusive, YC501, YC502, and YE001 through YE003 inclusive: This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012).
(iii) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011; except airplanes identified in paragraph (j)(4) of this AD and airplanes having variable numbers YA001 through YA019 inclusive, YA201 through YA203 inclusive, YA231 through YA242 inclusive, YA251, YA252, YA271, YA272, YA301, YA302, YA311, YA312, YA501 through YA508 inclusive, YA541, YA701, YA702, YC001 through YC007 inclusive, YC051, YC052, YC101, YC102, YC111, YC121, YC301, YC302, YC321 through YC330 inclusive, YC381, YC401 through YC403 inclusive, YC501, YC502, and YE001 through YE003 inclusive: This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012).
(iv) For Group 21, Configuration 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012: This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012); and provided that the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-21-1171, dated February 12, 2009 (which is not incorporated by reference in this AD), were accomplished prior to or concurrently with the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, dated January 11, 2010, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012).
(ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, Revision 1, dated July 5, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 2, dated August 23, 2013, specifies to contact Boeing for instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, Revision 2, dated June 5, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2012-19-11, Amendment 39-17206 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6596; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 15, 2015.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, Revision 2, dated June 5, 2014.
(ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 4, dated October 31, 2013.
(iii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 2, dated August 23, 2013.
(iv) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2014.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 7, 2012 (77 FR 60296, October 3, 2012).
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, dated January 11, 2010.
(ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010.
(iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011.
(iv) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012.
(v) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012.
(vi) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010.
(vii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 2, dated April 30, 2012.
(5) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(6) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-524B-02, RB211-524B2-19, RB211-524B3-02, RB211-524B4-02, RB211-524B4-D-02, RB211-524C2-19, RB211-524D4-19, RB211-524D4-39, and RB211-524D4X-19 turbofan engines. This AD requires removing affected high-pressure turbine (HPT) blades. This AD was prompted by several failures of affected HPT blades. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT blade, which could lead to failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.
This AD becomes effective September 15, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Katheryn Malatek, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7747; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the
There were a number of pre-MOD/SB 72-7730 High Pressure Turbine (HPT) blade failures, with some occurring within a relatively short time. Engineering analysis carried out by RR on those occurrences indicates that certain pre-MOD/SB 72-7730 blades, Part Number (P/N) UL32958 and P/N UL21691 (hereafter referred to as `affected HPT blade'), with an accumulated life of 6500 flight hours (FH) since new or more, have an increased risk of in-service failure.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to HPT blade failure, release of debris and consequent (partial or complete) loss of engine power, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 23741, April 29, 2015).
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.
We estimate that this AD affects 6 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Pro-rated cost of required parts is about $250,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,502,040.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective September 15, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-524B-02, RB211-524B2-19, RB211-524B3-02, RB211-524B4-02, RB211-524B4-D-02, RB211-524C2-19, RB211-524D4-19, RB211-524D4-39, and RB211-524D4X-19 turbofan engines with high-pressure turbine (HPT) blades, part numbers (P/Ns) UL32958 and UL21691, installed.
This AD was prompted by several failures of affected HPT blades. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT blade, which could lead to failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.
(1) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, within 2 months or before exceeding 6,500 flight hours since first installation of HPT blades, P/Ns UL32958 and UL21691, on an engine, whichever occurs later, remove all affected HPT blades from service.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Katheryn Malatek, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7747; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2014-0250, dated November 19, 2014, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directives (AD) 2003-14-11, AD 2004-11-08, AD 2004-13-25, AD 2004-18-14, AD 2007-05-12, AD 2008-06-07, AD 2009-18-20, AD 2010-15-02, and AD 2012-04-07 that apply to certain Airbus Model A330 and A340 series airplanes. AD 2003-14-11, AD 2004-11-08, AD 2004-13-25, AD 2004-18-14, AD 2007-05-12, AD 2008-06-07, AD 2009-18-20, AD 2010-15-02, and AD 2012-04-07 required revising the maintenance program to incorporate certain maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations; replacing certain flap rotary actuators; repetitively inspecting elevator servo-controllers and pressure relief valves of the spoiler servo controls; repetitively testing the elevator servo control loops, modifying the elevator servo controls, and repetitively replacing certain retraction brackets of the main landing gear; and revising the airplane flight manual. This new AD requires revising the maintenance program or inspection program to incorporate certain maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This new AD also removes Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes from the applicability and adds Airbus Model A330-323 airplanes to the applicability. This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the aging effects of aircraft systems. Such aging effects could change the characteristics of those systems, which, in isolation or in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in failure of certain life limited parts, which could reduce the structural integrity of the airplane or reduce the controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective September 15, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 15, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to revise the following airworthiness directives that applied to certain Airbus Model A330 and A340 series airplanes.
• AD 2003-14-11, Amendment 39-13230 (68 FR 41521, July 14, 2003).
• AD 2004-11-08, Amendment 39-13654 (69 FR 31874, June 8, 2004).
• AD 2004-13-25, Amendment 39-13707 (69 FR 41394, July 9, 2004).
• AD 2004-18-14, Amendment 39-13793 (69 FR 55326, September 14, 2004).
• AD 2007-05-12, Amendment 39-14973 (72 FR 10057, March 7, 2007).
• AD 2008-06-07, Amendment 39-15419 (73 FR 13103, March 12, 2008; corrected April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20367)).
• AD 2009-18-20, Amendment 39-16017 (74 FR 46313, September 9, 2009).
• AD 2010-15-02, Amendment 39-16368 (75 FR 42589, July 22, 2010).
• AD 2012-04-07, Amendment 39-16963 (77 FR 12989, March 5, 2012).
The SNPRM published in the
The SNPRM (80 FR 12360, March 9, 2015) proposed to supersede AD 2007-05-12, Amendment 39-14973 (72 FR 10057, March 7, 2007); AD 2009-18-20, Amendment 39-16017 (74 FR 46313, September 9, 2009); and AD 2010-15-02, Amendment 39-16368 (75 FR 42589, July 22, 2010); in addition to those ADs already identified in the NPRM (78 FR 66861, November 7, 2013), as well as to require more restrictive limitations and to add Airbus Model A330-323 airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to address the aging effects of aircraft systems. Such aging effects could change the characteristics of those systems, which, in isolation or in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in failure of certain life limited parts, which could reduce the structural integrity of the airplane or reduce the controllability of the airplane.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0268, dated November 7, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A330 series airplanes. EASA AD 2013-0268 supersedes and retains the requirements of four EASA ADs and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations for Airbus aeroplanes are currently published in Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents.
The airworthiness limitations applicable to the Ageing Systems Maintenance (ASM) are given in Airbus A330 ALS Part 4, which is approved by EASA.
Revision 04 of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4 introduces more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0020 [
In addition, this [EASA] AD also supersedes EASA AD 2006-0159 [
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. An anonymous commenter supported the SNPRM (80 FR 12360, March 9, 2015).
We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM (80 FR 12360, March 9, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (80 FR 12360, March 9, 2015).
Airbus issued A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, and Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM), Variation 4.1 and Variation 4.2, both dated July 23, 2014. This service information describes preventative maintenance requirements and associated airworthiness limitations applicable to aircraft systems susceptible to aging effects. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 79 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $13,430, or $170 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective September 15, 2015.
This AD replaces the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(9) of this AD.
(1) AD 2003-14-11, Amendment 39-13230 (68 FR 41521, July 14, 2003).
(2) AD 2004-11-08, Amendment 39-13654 (69 FR 31874, June 8, 2004).
(3) AD 2004-13-25, Amendment 39-13707 (69 FR 41394, July 9, 2004).
(4) AD 2004-18-14, Amendment 39-13793 (69 FR 55326, September 14, 2004).
(5) AD 2007-05-12, Amendment 39-14973 (72 FR 10057, March 7, 2007).
(6) AD 2008-06-07, Amendment 39-15419 (73 FR 13103, March 12, 2008; corrected April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20367)).
(7) AD 2009-18-20, Amendment 39-16017 (74 FR 46313, September 9, 2009).
(8) AD 2010-15-02, Amendment 39-16368 (75 FR 42589, July 22, 2010).
(9) AD 2012-04-07, Amendment 39-16963 (77 FR 12989, March 5, 2012).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -223F, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the aging effects of aircraft systems. Such aging effects could change the characteristics of those systems, which, in isolation or in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in failure of certain life limited parts, which could reduce the structural integrity of the airplane or reduce the controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance program or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, and Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM), Variation 4.1 and Variation 4.2, both dated July 23, 2014. The initial compliance times for the actions are within the applicable compliance times specified in the Record of Revisions pages of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM), Variation 4.1 and Variation 4.2, both dated July 23, 2014, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) Where Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, defines a calendar compliance time for elevator servo-controls having part number (P/N) SC4800-2, SC4800-3, SC4800-4, SC4800-6, SC4800-7, or SC4800-8 as “August 31, 2004,” the calendar compliance time is June 13, 2007 (34 months after August 13, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-13-25, Amendment 39-13707 (69 FR 41394, July 9, 2004))).
(2) Where Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, defines a calendar compliance time for spoiler servo-controls (SSCs) having P/N 1386A0000-01, P/N 1386B0000-01, P/N 1387A0000-01 or P/N 1387B0000-01 as “December 31, 2003,” the calendar compliance time is November 19, 2005 (13 months after October 19, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-18-14, Amendment 39-13793 (69 FR 55326, September 14, 2004))).
(3) Where Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, defines a calendar compliance time for elevator servo-controls having P/N SC4800-73, SC4800-93, SC4800-103 and SC4800-113 as “June 30, 2008,” the calendar compliance time is September 16, 2009 (17 months after April 16, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-06-07, Amendment 39-15419 (73 FR 13103, March 12, 2008; corrected April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20367)))).
(4) The initial compliance time for replacement of the retraction brackets of the main landing gear (MLG) having a part number specified in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) through (h)(4)(xvi) of this AD is before the accumulation of 19,800 total landings on the affected retraction brackets of the MLG, or within 900 flight hours after April 9, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-04-07, Amendment 39-16963 (77 FR 12989, March 5, 2012), whichever occurs later.
(i) 201478303
(ii) 201478304
(iii) 201478305
(iv) 201478306
(v) 201478307
(vi) 201478308
(vii) 201428380
(viii) 201428381
(ix) 201428382
(x) 201428383
(xi) 201428384
(xii) 201428385
(xiii) 201428378
(xiv) 201428379
(xv) 201428351
(xvi) 201428352
(5) Where Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, defines a calendar compliance time for the modification of SSCs on three hydraulic circuits having part numbers MZ4339390-01X, MZ4306000-01X, MZ4339390-02X, MZ4306000-02X, MZ4339390-10X, or MZ4306000-10X as “March 5, 2010,” the calendar compliance time is April 14, 2011 (18 months after October 14, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-18-20, Amendment 39-16017 (74 FR 46313, September 9, 2009))).
(6) Where Note (6) of “ATA 27-64-00 Flight Control—Spoiler Hydraulic Actuation,” of Sub-part 4-2-1, “Life Limits,” of Sub-part 4-2, “Systems Life Limited Components,” of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, defines a calendar date of “September 5, 2008,” as a date for the determination of accumulated flight cycles since the aircraft initial entry into service, the date is October 14, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-18-20, Amendment 39-16017 (74 FR 46313, September 9, 2009)).
(7) Where Note (6) of “ATA 27-64-00 Flight Control—Spoiler Hydraulic Actuation,” of Sub-part 4-2-1, “Life Limits,” of Sub-part 4-2, “Systems Life Limited Components,” of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, defines a calendar compliance time as “March 5, 2010,” for the modification of affected servo controls, the calendar compliance time is April 14, 2011 (18 months after October 14, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-18-20, Amendment 39-16017 (74 FR 46313, September 9, 2009))).
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2013-0268, dated November 7, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013.
(ii) Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM), Variation 4.1, dated July 23, 2014.
(iii) Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM), Variation 4.2, dated July 23, 2014.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Kidde Graviner hand-operated fire extinguishers. This AD was prompted by a report that a fire extinguisher failed to operate when the activation lever was pressed. This AD requires modifying the affected fire extinguishers. We are issuing this AD to prevent fire extinguishers from failing to operate in the event of a fire, which could jeopardize occupants' safety and continuation of safe flight and landing.
This AD becomes effective September 15, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 15, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Kidde Graviner Limited, Mathisen Way, Colnbrook, Slough, Berkshire, SL3 0HB, United Kingdom; telephone +44 (0) 1753 583245; fax +44 (0) 1753 685040. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at
Ian Lucas, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-150, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Kidde Graviner hand-operated fire extinguishers. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0037, dated March 9, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Kidde Graviner hand-operated fire extinguishers. The MCAI states:
An instance occurred where an operator tried to use the fire extinguisher, but the extinguisher failed to operate when the activation lever was pressed.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead, in case of need to use the device to extinguish a fire on an aircraft, to jeopardize the occupants' safety as well as the flight continuation and safe landing.
The part manufacturer Kidde Graviner has introduced a design change to remove the root cause of the possible failure.
This [EASA] AD requires to modify all potentially defective fire extinguishers [including applying adhesive to the gland nut].
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 62070, October 16, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment. One anonymous commenter supported the NPRM.
One anonymous commenter requested that we revise paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (79 FR 62070, October 16, 2014) to refer to “aircraft” instead of “various transport and small airplanes.” The commenter stated that the change is in the interest of improving accuracy and for clarification. The commenter added the request is based on the fact that the key to addressing the unsafe condition is finding suspected products, defined by the manufacturer's part numbers, and the category under which the aircraft operates is not material.
We agree with the request to refer to “aircraft” instead of “various transport and small airplanes” for the reasons stated by the commenter. We have replaced the text “various transport and small airplanes” with the word “aircraft” in paragraph (c) of this AD.
We have revised paragraph (c)(3) of this AD to identify the manufacturer name for the Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, C-212-CF, C-212-DE, and C-212-DF airplanes as Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Type Certificate previously held by EADS CASA; Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.). Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Type Certificate previously held by EADS CASA; Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) is the manufacturer name published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for those models.
We have added a reference to “paragraph (h) of this AD” within paragraph (i) of this AD to clarify which modified parts may be installed.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 62070, October 16, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 62070, October 16, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Kidde Graviner has issued Alert Service Bulletin A26-081, Revision 1, dated January 31, 2012. The service information describes procedures for modifying fire extinguishers. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 400 appliances installed on, but not limited to, various aircraft of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 25 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $850,000, or $2,125 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective September 15, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Kidde Graviner hand-operated fire extinguishers having part numbers 56412-001 (34H), 56411-001 (35H), and 56412-002 (38H). These fire extinguishers may be installed on, but not limited to, aircraft, certificated in any category, specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) of this AD.
(1) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model ATP airplanes.
(2) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Type Certificate previously held by EADS CASA; Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, C-212-CF, C-212-DE, and C-212-DF airplanes.
(4) Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 050, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes.
(5) Short Brothers PLC Model SD3-60 SHERPA, SD3-SHERPA, SD3-30, and SD3-60 airplanes.
(6) SHORT BROTHERS & HARLAND LTD SC-7 Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire Protection.
This AD was prompted by a report that a fire extinguisher failed to operate when the activation lever was pressed. We are issuing this AD to prevent fire extinguishers from failing to operate in the event of a fire, which could jeopardize occupants' safety and continuation of safe flight and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, modify all Kidde Graviner hand-operated fire extinguishers having part numbers 56412-001 (34H), 56411-001 (35H), and 56412-002 (38H), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Kidde Graviner Alert Service Bulletin A26-081, Revision 1, dated January 31, 2012.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Kidde Graviner Alert Service Bulletin A26-081, dated August 23, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any Kidde Graviner hand-operated fire extinguisher having part number 56412-001 (34H), 56411-001 (35H), or 56412-002 (38H) on any airplane unless the fire extinguisher has been modified as specified in paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD.
The following provision for Alternative Methods of Compliances (AMOCs) also applies to this AD: The manager of the office having certificate responsibility for the affected product has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, will coordinate requests for approval of AMOCs with the manager of the appropriate office for the affected product. Send information to ATTN: Ian Lucas, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO, ANE-150, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7757; fax: 781-238-7170; email:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2012-0037, dated March 9, 2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Kidde Graviner Alert Service Bulletin A26-081, Revision 1, dated January 31, 2012. Page 2 of this document is dated August 23, 2011.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Kidde Graviner Limited, Mathisen Way, Colnbrook, Slough, Berkshire, SL3 0HB, United Kingdom; telephone +44 (0) 1753 583245; fax +44 (0) 1753 685040.
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Final rule.
This rule updates HUD fees for multifamily housing and residential healthcare facilities, and updates and
For information about: HUD's Multifamily Housing program, contact Dan Sullivan, Deputy Director, Office of Multifamily Housing Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6148, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number 202-708-1142; HUD's Healthcare program, contact Vance Morris, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number 202-402-2419. The telephone numbers listed above are not toll-free numbers. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access these numbers through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
On January 14, 2015, HUD published a proposed rule in the
HUD's January 14, 2015, rule proposed to amend HUD's general fee regulations in 24 CFR 200.40, which contain the fees that apply to most mortgages insured by FHA, including Section 232 mortgages. To bring consistency and conformity to HUD's regulations, the amount of the application fee for Section 232 programs would be moved to a new § 200.40(d)(2), and only cross-referenced in the Section 232 program regulations. The current § 200.40(d), setting the general application fee, would be redesignated as § 200.40(d)(1). In addition, paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) would allow the Secretary flexibility in setting the respective fees, up to a maximum fee of $5.00 per thousand dollars of the requested mortgage amount to be insured.
The rule proposed to eliminate the commitment fee in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 232, subpart C, and therefore also proposed to eliminate the requirement in § 232.515 that the commitment fee be refunded. The provisions allowing for refund of the application fee remained unchanged. In addition, instead of being set out in the Section 232 program regulations, the maximum fees and charges and the inspection fee in §§ 232.520 and 232.522, respectively, would cross-reference the §§ 200.40 and 200.41 regulations.
HUD's January 14, 2015, rule proposed to update and streamline the requirements of HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 232, subpart C, and primarily focused on removing or revising several fees required in these regulations that HUD has determined are no longer needed or, alternatively, are not set at sufficient levels.
The rule proposed to remove the requirement at § 232.505(a) that an application for insurance of a fire safety loan under part 232 be considered in connection with a proposal approved by the Secretary of HHS. Section 232.615 would still require, however, that the facility requesting the loan meet HHS fire safety requirements.
In § 232.510(b), the rule proposed to replace the responsibility of the Secretary of HHS to determine the satisfactory completion of installation of fire safety equipment with that of the Commissioner.
In § 232.570, the rule proposed to eliminate the requirement that the Secretary of HHS submit a statement that the fire safety equipment has been satisfactorily installed. The rule proposed to replace this provision with a requirement of a certification that the improvements were installed as required by § 232.500(c). As stated earlier in regard to other proposed changes, § 232.615 would still require the facility to meet HHS fire safety requirements in order for HUD to insure the loan.
The rule proposed to eliminate the requirement in § 232.620 that an application for insurance under 24 CFR part 232, subpart C, be accompanied by a statement from HHS or the HHS Secretary's designee, such as a State, that the facility will meet pertinent health and safety requirements of HHS—other than the fire safety equipment requirements—once the fire safety equipment has been installed. Instead of this requirement, the rule proposed to substitute a reference to certification of compliance with HHS, Federal, State, and local requirements for fire safety equipment to be provided prior to endorsement.
The rule also proposed to revise the definition of “eligible borrower” in § 232.615 to eliminate all references to the requirement that the facility meet
This final rule follows publication of the January 14, 2015, proposed rule and adopts that proposed rule without change. The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on March 16, 2015, and HUD received one public comment.
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.
At the proposed rule stage, this document was determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of the Executive order. Because this final rule adopts the January 14, 2015, proposed rule, without change, the final rule is also not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule have been submitted to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and approved under OMB control numbers 2502-0605 and 2502-0541. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment for this rule was made at the proposed rule stage, in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI remains applicable, and is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., weekdays, in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-5000. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the FONSI by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule would not impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the UMRA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The final rule imposes no requirements on small businesses. In fact, streamlining the Fire Safety Equipment Loan Program requirements should ease an existing burden on those small businesses seeking to accommodate acute care patients and those needing to upgrade or install fire safety equipment to meet HHS requirements.
Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either (i) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute or (ii) preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.
The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for the Mortgage Insurance Nursing Homes, Intermediate Care Facilities, Board and Care Homes and Assisted Living Facilities is 14.129; for Mortgage Insurance-Rental Housing
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Home improvement, Housing standards, Lead poisoning, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping.
Fire prevention, Health facilities, Loan programs—health, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in this preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR parts 200 and 232 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1702-1715z-21; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(d)(1)
* * *
(2)
12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715w; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The edition of The Life Safety Code of the National Fire Protection Association as accepted by the Department of Health and Human Services in 42 CFR 483.70; or
(ii) A standard mandated by a State under the provisions of section 1616(e) of the Social Security Act.
(e)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
If the amount of the commitment issued or an increase in the loan amount prior to endorsement is less than the amount applied for, the Commissioner shall refund the excess amount of the application fee submitted by the applicant. If an application is rejected before it is assigned for processing, or in such other instances as the Commissioner may determine, the entire application fee or any portion thereof may be returned to the applicant.
See 24 CFR 200.40 titled “HUD fees” and 200.41 titled “Maximum mortgage fees and charges” for maximum fees and charges applicable to mortgages insured under 24 CFR part 232.
See 24 CFR 200.40 titled “HUD fees” and 200.41 titled “Maximum mortgage fees and charges” for maximum fees and charges applicable to mortgages insured under 24 CFR part 232.
See 24 CFR 200.82 titled “Maturity” for loan payment and amortization period requirements applicable to mortgages insured under 24 CFR part 232.
The principal amount of the loan shall not exceed the lower of the Commissioner's estimate of the cost of the fire safety equipment, including the cost of installation and eligible fees, or the amount supported by ninety percent (90%) of the residual income, which is ninety percent (90%) of the amount of net income remaining after payment of all existing debt service requirements, as determined by the Commissioner. * * *
(c) Certification that fire safety equipment was installed as required by § 232.500(c).
The contract between the mortgagor and the general contractor may be in the form of a lump sum contract, a cost plus contract, or different or alternative forms of contract specified by the Commissioner.
(a)
(a) In order to be eligible as a borrower under this subpart the applicant shall be a profit or non-profit entity, which owns a nursing home or intermediate care facility for which the Secretary of Health and Human Services has determined that the installation of fire safety equipment in such facility is necessary to meet the applicable requirements of the Secretary of Health and Human Services for providers of services under Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act and that upon completion of the installation of such equipment the nursing home or intermediate care facility will meet the applicable fire safety requirements of HHS. Until the termination of all obligations of the Commissioner under an insurance contract under this subpart and during such further period of time as the Commissioner shall be the owner, holder, or reinsurer of the loan, the borrower shall be regulated or restricted by the Commissioner as to methods of operation including requirements for maintenance of fire safety equipment.
Prior to Endorsement, applicant must provide certification that the installed improvements will meet HHS, as well as all other Federal, state and local requirements for fire safety equipment, if applicable.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Final priority.
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Experimental and Innovative Training program. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. We take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified national need. We intend the priority to support a Technical Assistance Center for Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance (PEQA).
This priority is effective September 10, 2015.
Don Bunuan, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5046, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-6616 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
We published a notice of proposed priority for this competition in the
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address comments that raise concerns not directly related to the proposed priority.
Thus, the Basic Certification Program described in this priority is designed as an intensive, structured training program to increase the numbers and qualifications of VR program evaluators. The Special Topical Trainings are targeted to more advanced program evaluators, and we want to ensure that those individuals have first priority in attending those sessions. However, if additional space in a Special Topical Training is available, we believe it would be an appropriate and efficient use of resources to open enrollment to individuals who have completed the Basic Certification Program, and then, if seats still remain, to other State VR agency personnel whose current work responsibilities are closely aligned with the specific topic area of the training.
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement for a training and technical assistance center that will assist State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies to improve performance management by building their capacity to carry out high-quality program evaluations
The Technical Assistance Center for Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance (PEQA) will assist State VR agencies in building capacity through professional education and training of VR evaluators. To this end, PEQA will:
(a) Provide educational opportunities for State VR staff from recognized experts in program evaluation and quality assurance;
(b) Develop interagency collaboration networks and work teams committed to the improvement of quality assurance systems and tools; and
(c) Deliver technical, professional, and continuing educational support to State VR program evaluators.
To meet the requirements of this priority, the PEQA must, at a minimum, conduct the following activities:
(a) Develop a one-year certificate program in VR program evaluation that will result in increasing the numbers and qualifications of program evaluators in State VR agencies. At a minimum, this certificate program must:
(1) Be designed to develop key competencies necessary for successful implementation of program evaluation and quality assurance activities, including, but not limited to:
(i) Knowledge of the State-Federal VR program;
(ii) Data collection methodologies;
(iii) Data analysis and interpretation;
(iv) Making evaluative judgments and recommendations;
(v) Effective communication of results (including presentations, drafting reports, and building partnerships); and
(vi) Ethical practice.
(2) Be responsive to the prior knowledge and skills of participants;
(3) Incorporate adult learning principles and opportunities for practice into training;
(4) Be delivered through multiple modalities and in an accessible format;
(5) Assess, at regular intervals, the progress of training participants toward attainment of the key competencies; and
(6) Require the completion of a capstone project in order to successfully complete the program. The capstone project must:
(i) Be completed within one year of the completion of formal coursework for the certificate program;
(ii) Be conducted on a topic responsive to the needs of the State VR agency and agreed to by the PEQA, the participant, and the State VR agency; and
(iii) Be completed as part of the normal work duties of the participant in the State VR agency.
(7) Be provided at no cost to participants, excluding travel and per diem costs, which may be provided by the sponsoring agency.
(b) Provide training through the certificate program to a cohort of eight to ten working professionals in each year of the project.
(c) Select participants for the certificate program based, in part, on the considered recommendation of their employing State VR agencies.
(a) Develop a series of special training opportunities for intermediate-level program evaluators. These training opportunities must, at a minimum:
(1) Be designed to develop higher-level knowledge, skills, and abilities of program participants;
(2) Be focused on a range of topics determined by the PEQA with input from State VR agencies and other relevant groups or organizations;
(3) Provide opportunities for hands-on application of the competencies discussed in the trainings;
(4) Be of sufficient duration and intensity to ensure that participants obtain the competencies discussed in the trainings; and
(5) Assess the progress of program participants in attaining the competencies discussed in the trainings.
(b) If, after ensuring that intermediate-level program evaluators have priority in registering for Special Topical Training provided under paragraph (a), the PEQA determines that additional space is available, the Center may open registration to individuals who have completed the Basic Certification Program described in this priority. In addition, if additional space in such training opportunities is still available after intermediate-level program evaluators and individuals who have completed the Basic Certification Program have been allowed to register, the Center may open registration to State VR agency personnel whose current work responsibilities are closely aligned with the specific topic area of the particular training opportunity.
(c) Conduct no fewer than four special training opportunities each year of the project.
(a) Support, strengthen, and augment existing communities of practice, and establish new communities of practice, as needed, to act as vehicles for communication, exchange of information among program evaluation
(b) Maintain a Web site that, at a minimum:
(1) Provides a central location for later reference and use of capstone projects, resources from special training opportunities, and other relevant materials; and
(2) Ensures peer-to-peer access between State VR project evaluation professionals;
(c) Communicate and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other relevant Department-funded projects and those supported by the Departments of Labor, Commerce, and Health and Human Services; and
(d) Maintain ongoing communication with the RSA project officer and other RSA staff as required.
To be funded under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority. RSA encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Address State VR agencies' capacity to conduct high quality program evaluation and data analysis activities. To address this requirement, the applicant must:
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of emerging and best practices in program evaluation and quality assurance;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current State VR and other efforts designed to improve evaluation and performance management practices.
(2) Increase the number of program evaluators working in State VR agencies who have obtained a certificate in their field of work and the number and quality of program evaluation activities performed by State VR agencies.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes;
(ii) A plan for how the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes; and
(iii) A plan for communicating and coordinating with relevant training programs and communities of practice, State VR agencies, and other RSA partners.
(2) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework.
(3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe:
(i) How the current research about adult learning principles and implementation science will inform the proposed training; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and evidence-based practices in the development and delivery of its products and services.
(4) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Its proposed curriculum for a certificate program for VR evaluation professionals;
(ii) Its proposed plan for recruiting and selecting trainees for the certification program;
(iii) Its proposed plan for collecting information on the impact of capstone projects;
(iv) Its proposed plan for identifying, selecting and addressing the special topical program evaluation and quality assurance related training needs of State VR agency staff;
(v) Its proposed plan for annual follow-up with participants in special training opportunities;
(5) Develop products and implement services to maximize the project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes; and
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration.
(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Measure and track the effectiveness of the training provided. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe its proposed approach to—
(i) Collecting data on the effectiveness of training activities;
(ii) Analyzing and reporting data on the effectiveness of training, including any proposed standards or targets for determining effectiveness;
(2) Collect and analyze data on specific and measurable goals, objectives, and intended outcomes of the project, including measuring and tracking the effectiveness of the training provided. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Its proposed evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data collection methods, and analyses;
(ii) Its proposed standards or targets for determining effectiveness;
(iii) How it will use the evaluation results to examine the effectiveness of its implementation and its progress toward achieving the intended outcomes; and
(iv) How the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project and individual training activities achieved their intended outcomes.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks.
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated to the project and how these
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of State and local personnel, technical assistance providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing this final priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities. The benefits of the Rehabilitation Training program have been well established over the years through the successful completion of similar projects funded for the purpose of improving the skills of State VR agency staff. The priority would specifically improve the skills of State VR agency evaluators. A project of this type will be particularly beneficial to State VR agencies in this era of increased emphasis on accountability and program results.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Washington, Department of Ecology (Ecology). These revisions pertain to the plan to maintain the 1997 8-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone in the Vancouver portion of the Portland/Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area (Pdx/Van AQMA). The maintenance plan for this area meets Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements and demonstrates that the Vancouver portion of the Pdx/Van AQMA will be able to remain in attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2015. The EPA is approving the maintenance plan and minor revisions to the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) regulations in the statewide Emission Check Program.
This action is effective on September 10, 2015.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2007-0112. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, (206) 553-6121, or by email at
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in more detail in our May 5, 2010 proposal.
The EPA also proposed to approve revisions to the I/M regulations in the statewide Emission Check Program. The revisions enhance the clarity of the rules and update them to reflect changing technology in automobiles, including allowing late model vehicles to be tested with their on-board diagnostic systems instead of with a tail-pipe test. The revisions also remove inspection fee provisions that had been previously approved into the SIP.
The EPA received one comment on our May 5, 2010 proposed approval (75 FR 24542). The comment from the Sierra Club raised concerns about affirmative defense provisions applicable to violations that occur due to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, maintenance and upsets (SSM) in the existing Washington SIP.
The Sierra Club commented that the existence of the affirmative defense provisions in the underlying SIP compromises the ability of the maintenance plan to achieve its goals and threatens to cause or contribute to NAAQS violations in the Pdx/Van AQMA and downwind. Specifically, the Sierra Club described three concerns with the affirmative defense provisions in Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCAA) and Ecology regulations, SWCAA 400-107(4)-(6) and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-400-107(4)-(6). The commenter argued that the affirmative defense for excess emissions during startup and shutdown should be removed because the provisions “lack justification” and because excess emissions “are already taken into consideration when setting emission standards and limits” and the regulatory provisions are inconsistent with EPA guidance for compliance with CAA requirements for SIP provisions as expressed in the Memorandum of Steven A. Herman and Robert Perciasepe, Policy on Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup and Shutdown (August 11, 1999) (the “Herman Memo”). The commenter also argued that the affirmative defense for excess emissions during scheduled maintenance should be eliminated “because routine maintenance is part of normal operations and should not, by itself, justify excess emissions” and that the regulatory provisions are inconsistent with the interpretation of the CAA in the Herman Memo. Finally, the commenter argued that the affirmative defense for excess emissions during upsets (
The SWCAA and Ecology regulations that provide for an affirmative defense for emissions during certain events that
Although it is not required to address existing affirmative defense provisions in the context of this action on a maintenance plan, the EPA does have other authority to address alleged deficiencies in existing SIP provisions. In particular, the EPA has authority under section 110(k)(5) to address existing SIP deficiencies whenever it determines that a SIP provision is substantially inadequate. The EPA notes that since receipt of the comments discussed above on this action, the EPA finalized a call for SIP revisions (SSM SIP Call) as necessary to remove the identified affirmative defense provisions from the Washington SIP.
The EPA emphasizes that its approval of a maintenance plan does not mean that the SIP for the state in question fully meets each and every requirement of the CAA. More specifically, this approval does not constitute a finding that Washington's SIP, including the affirmative defense provisions, meets all CAA requirements. Nor does this final action contradict the EPA's separate finding in the SSM SIP Call that certain provisions in the Washington SIP, including the SWCAA rules, are substantially inadequate and therefore must be addressed to be consistent with CAA requirements. Rather, the nature of today's final action is a finding addressing the adequacy of the SIP to meet certain identified maintenance requirements. As discussed in our proposed action, the following is a summary of our evaluation of the submission against the five maintenance requirements in CAA section 110(a)(1) and the provisions of the EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule (40 CFR 51.905(a)(3) and (4)):
1. An attainment inventory, which is based on actual typical summer day emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
Ecology provided a comprehensive and current emissions inventory for NO
2. A maintenance demonstration which shows how the area will remain in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard for 10 years after the effective date of the designation.
Ecology projected that the total emissions of ozone precursors from Vancouver will decrease through 2015, which is further than 10 years from the effective date of the initial designations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (
3. A commitment to continue to operate ambient air quality monitors to verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard.
Ecology commits to continue operating air quality monitoring stations in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 throughout the maintenance period to verify maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and will submit quality assured ozone data to the EPA through the Air Quality System.
4. A contingency plan that will ensure that any violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be promptly corrected.
The provisions in the contingency plan are linked to ambient concentrations of ozone and would be triggered if measured ozone levels at any of the ozone monitoring sites exceed early-warning thresholds or if a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs. The contingency measures include a range of response actions that may be selected for implementation.
5. An explanation of how the state will verify continued attainment of the standard under the maintenance plan.
Ecology will continue to monitor ambient air quality ozone levels in the Vancouver portion of the Pdx/Van AQMA and will update countywide emission inventories every three years. If ambient ozone levels increase, Ecology will evaluate the emissions inventory against the 2002 and 2015 inventories in the maintenance plan.
Because the commenter's concerns with the affirmative defense provisions of Washington's SIP have been addressed through the SSM SIP Call and the instant action does not directly affect these existing provisions in Washington's SIP, the EPA is taking final action to approve the ozone maintenance plan as originally proposed.
The EPA emphasizes that approval of the maintenance plan does not relieve SWCAA or Ecology of the responsibility to remove legally deficient SIP provisions pursuant to a SIP call. To the contrary, the EPA maintains that affirmative defense provisions are contrary to CAA requirements and has taken separate action to require correction of those deficiencies. For an explanation of the EPA's interpretation of the CAA with respect to affirmative defense provisions in SIPs, see 80 FR 33840, 33981 (June 12, 2015).
The EPA is approving the 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan for the Vancouver portion of the Pdx/Van AQMA and the new industrial growth allowances that have been used in the maintenance demonstration for this submission. Additionally, the EPA is incorporating by reference into the federally enforceable SIP the revisions to the I/M provisions (WAC Chapter 173-422) that merely reflect the changes as a result of technology upgrades in automobiles and remove inspection fee provisions that had been previously approved into the SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 13, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Georgia, through Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) on February 6, 2015, to address the base year emissions inventory and emissions statements requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta Area”). These requirements apply to all ozone nonattainment areas. The Atlanta Area is comprised of 15 counties in Atlanta (Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale). This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.
This direct final rule is effective October 13, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 10, 2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0248, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached at (404) 562-9088 and via electronic mail at
On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm).
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The Atlanta Area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2009-2011 ambient air quality data.
Based on the nonattainment designation, Georgia was required to develop a SIP revision addressing certain CAA requirements for areas designated nonattainment. Specifically, pursuant to CAA sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(B), Georgia was required to submit a SIP revision addressing the emissions inventory and emissions statements requirements, respectively.
Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NO
On February 6, 2015, Georgia submitted a SIP revision addressing the emissions inventory and emissions statements requirements related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area.
As discussed above, section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires areas to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in each ozone non-attainment area. The section 182(a)(1) base year inventory is defined in the SIP Requirements Rule as “a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from sources of VOC and NO
Georgia selected 2011 as the base year for the emissions inventory which is the year corresponding with the first triennial inventory under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. This base year is one of the three years of ambient data used to designate the Area as a nonattainment area and therefore represents emissions associated with nonattainment conditions. The emissions inventory is based on data developed and submitted by GA EPD to EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and it contains data elements consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
Georgia's emissions inventory for the Atlanta Area provides 2011 typical average summer day emissions for NO
The emissions reported for the Atlanta Area reflect the emissions for the 15 counties in the nonattainment area. The inventory contains point source emissions data for facilities located within the Area based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping. More detail on the emissions for individual sources categories is provided below and in Appendix A of the Georgia submittal.
Point sources are large, stationary, identifiable sources of emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. The EGU point sources emissions inventory was developed from facility-specific emissions data. NO
Nonpoint sources are small emission stationary sources which, due to their large number, collectively have significant emissions (
On-road mobile sources include vehicles used on roads for transportation of passengers or freight. Georgia developed its on-road emissions inventory using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model for each ozone nonattainment county.
Non-road mobile sources include vehicles, engines, and equipment used for construction, agriculture, recreation and other purposes that do not use the roadways (
Georgia included 2011 actual emissions from fire events and biogenic sources in its emissions inventory. Wildland fires are unplanned, unwanted wild land fires including unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped prescribed fire projects, or other inadvertent fire situations where the objective is to put the fire out. Prescribed fires are any fires ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives related to the reduction of the biomass potentially available for wildfires. Fire event emissions were developed by GA EPD using fire records collected from the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC), when fire activities were not included in the GFC database, military bases and federal agencies (USFS and FWS) records were used. In addition, GA EPD collected detailed burning records for the Okefenokee area which showed burned area per day. A detailed account of fire event sources can be found in Appendix A and on page 4 of the Inventory Document in the Georgia submittal.
Biogenic emission sources are emissions that come from natural sources. GA EPD obtained biogenic emissions for 2011 from the 2011 NEI and used the summary of county-specific daily biogenic emissions.
For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that Georgia's emissions inventory meets the requirements under CAA section 182(a)(1) and the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B), states with ozone nonattainment areas must require annual emissions statements from NO
EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by Georgia on February 6, 2015, addressing the base year emissions inventory and emissions statement requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. EPA has concluded that the State's submission meets the requirements of sections 110 and 182 of the CAA. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 13, 2015 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the Agency may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 13, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the golden tilefish recreational sector in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic for the 2015 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS estimates recreational landings of golden tilefish in 2015 have exceeded the recreational annual catch limit (ACL). Therefore, NMFS closes the golden tilefish recreational sector in the South Atlantic EEZ on August 11, 2015. This closure is necessary to protect the golden tilefish resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, August 11, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016.
Britni LaVine, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
The recreational ACL for golden tilefish is 3,019 fish. In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(a)(2), if recreational landings of golden tilefish exceed the recreational ACL, the Assistant Administrator, NMFS (AA), will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year. 2015 landings data from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center indicate that the golden tilefish recreational ACL has been exceeded. Therefore, this temporary rule implements an AM to close the golden tilefish recreational sector of the snapper-grouper fishery for the remainder of the 2015 fishing year. As a result, the recreational sector for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ will be closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time August 11, 2015.
During the closure, the bag and possession limits for golden tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. Additionally, during the following fishing year in 2016, NMFS will monitor recreational landings for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, reduce the length of the 2016 fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the recreational ACL, in accordance with 50 CFR 622.193(a)(2). The recreational sector for golden tilefish will reopen on January 1, 2016, the beginning of the 2016 recreational fishing season.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of golden tilefish and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the recreational sector for golden tilefish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the AMs established by Regulatory Amendment 12 to the FMP (77 FR 61295, October 9, 2012) and located at 50 CFR 622.193(a)(2) have already been subject to notice and comment. The AMs authorize the AA to file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year if recreational landings reach, or are projected to reach, the recreational ACL. All that remains is to notify the public of the recreational closure for golden tilefish for the remainder of the 2015 fishing year. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the golden tilefish resource, since time for notice and public comment will allow for continued recreational harvest and further exceedance of the recreational ACL.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Request for comments.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) has received a petition requesting a ban on supplemental mattresses for play yards with non-rigid sides, which are currently marketed to be used with non-full-size cribs, play yards, portable cribs, and play pens. The Commission invites written comments concerning the petition.
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments on the petition by October 13, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2015-0020, by any of the following methods:
Rocky Hammond, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-6833, email:
On June 16, 2015, Keeping Babies Safe (referred to as “KBS” or “petitioner”), submitted a petition to the Commission to initiate a rulemaking to ban supplemental mattresses for play yards with non-rigid sides, which are currently marketed to be used with non-full-size cribs, play yards, portable cribs, and play pens under the Commission's authority under section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), 15 U.S.C. 2057. KBS states that these supplemental mattresses should be deemed banned hazardous products because they present an unreasonable risk of injury and death to infants, and that no feasible consumer product safety standard would adequately protect infants from the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the product.
In support, the petitioner asserts that KBS analyzed the death and injuries associated with supplemental mattresses, based on CPSC incident data. According to KBS, between 2000 and 2013, 15 incidents involving supplemental mattresses occurred in domestic settings and six incidents occurred in a child care setting. The petitioner states that all of the incidents involved a child being wedged between gaps created when a supplemental mattress was added to a play yard or portable crib. The petitioner additionally states that the data indicate that most of the supplemental mattresses involved in deaths exceeded 1
The petitioner also asserts that the current standard (ASTM F406-13, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Non-Full-Size Baby Cribs/Play Yards) does not adequately address the risk of injury posed by supplemental mattresses. KBS states that although ASTM F406-13 requires each product to be sold with a mattress provided by the manufacturer with a total thickness not to exceed 1
Interested parties may obtain a copy of the petition by writing or calling the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; email:
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Drug Enforcement Administration proposes to place the substance eluxadoline (5-[[[(
Interested persons may file written comments on this proposal in accordance with 21 CFR 1308.43(g). Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before September 10, 2015. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
Interested persons, defined at 21 CFR 1300.01 as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811),” may file a request for hearing, notice of appearance, or waiver of hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.44 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1316.45, 1316.47, 1316.48, or 1316.49, as applicable. Requests for hearing, notices of appearance, and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing must be received on or before September 10, 2015.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-419N” on all correspondence, including any attachments.
•
•
•
John R. Scherbenske, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for public inspection online at
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
Comments containing personal identifying information and confidential business information identified as directed above will generally be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information or personal identifying information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to
An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are available at
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559. 21 CFR 1308.41-1308.45; 21 CFR part 1316, subpart D. In accordance with 21 CFR 1308.44(a)-(c), requests for hearing, notices of appearance, and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing may be submitted only by interested persons, defined as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811).” 21 CFR 1300.01. Such requests or notices must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(a) or (b), and 1316.47 or 1316.48, as applicable, and include a
Please note that pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), the purpose and subject matter of a hearing is restricted to: “find[ing] that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and * * * mak[ing] with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed * * *.” All requests for hearing and waivers of participation must be sent to the DEA using the address information provided above.
The DEA implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring an adequate supply is available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, each controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may, by rule, “add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he * * * finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and * * * makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed * * *.” The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
The CSA provides that scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on her own motion; (2) at the request of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS); or (3) on the petition of any interested party. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). If finalized, this action would impose the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions of schedule IV controlled substances for any person who handles eluxadoline.
Eluxadoline is a new molecular entity with central nervous system opioid properties. It has not been marketed in any country. Eluxadoline has mixed mu opioid receptor (MOR) and kappa opioid receptor (KOR) agonist and delta opioid receptor (DOR) antagonist properties. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved eluxadoline as a prescription drug for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-d). Eluxadoline will be marketed as 75 and 100 milligrams (mg) oral tablets under the trade name of Viberzi.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), proceedings to add a drug or substance to those controlled under the CSA may be initiated by request of the Secretary of the HHS.
In response, the DEA reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation provided by the HHS, and all other relevant data, and completed its own eight-factor review document pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c). Included below is a brief summary of each factor as analyzed by the HHS and the DEA, and as considered by the DEA in its proposed scheduling decision. Please note that both the DEA and the HHS analyses are available in their entirety under “Supporting and Related Material” in the public docket for this proposed rule at
1.
(1) There is evidence that individuals are taking the drug or drugs containing such a substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community;
(2) There is significant diversion of the drug or substance from legitimate drug channels;
(3) Individuals are taking the substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs in the course of his professional practice; or
(4) The drug or drugs containing such a substance are new drugs so related in their action to a drug or drugs already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that they will have the same potentiality for abuse as such substance, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.
Both the HHS and the DEA note that three of the above mentioned four criteria (1, 2, and 3) do not apply to eluxadoline for the following reasons. Eluxadoline is a new molecular entity
Eluxadoline acts as a high affinity agonist at MORs and KORs and as an antagonist at DORs. Eluxadoline produced opioid agonistic effects such as centrally mediated analgesia, sedation, motor impairment, respiratory depression, and death in some animals. Eluxadoline generalized to morphine in a drug discrimination study in monkeys suggesting its MOR agonist properties. Monkeys self-administered eluxadoline indicating its rewarding properties.
Receptor binding and functional profile studies demonstrate that eluxadoline has KOR agonistic activity. Pentazocine (schedule IV opioid analgesic) and butorphanol (schedule IV opioid analgesic) are the two currently marketed opioid drugs with KOR agonist activity. Pentazocine and butorphanol were initially approved for market as non-controlled drugs. However, subsequent reports of their actual abuse supported control as schedule IV drugs under the CSA. Clinical studies indicated that pentazocine and butorphanol have been shown to cause greater dysphoria and to be less abusable than the schedule II opioids.
In human abuse potential studies, eluxadoline produced both positive and negative responses. The maximal effects of eluxadoline on Drug Liking are greater than that of placebo, but less than that of oxycodone (schedule II). Eluxadoline produced small statistically significant increases in several positive subjective responses such as visual analog scale (VAS) scores for Take Drug Again, Subjective Drug Value, Good Drug Effects, High, and the Addiction Research Center Inventory-Morphine Benzedrine Group (ARCI-MBG, Euphoria). The positive subjective responses to eluxadoline were most often statistically significantly less than those produced by oxycodone. Eluxadoline produced a high rate of euphoria in human abuse potential studies. However, these euphoric effects of eluxadoline are less than that of oxycodone.
Eluxadoline at all doses elicited a small but significant increase in the VAS score for Drug Disliking. Eluxadoline also produced a statistically significant increase in VAS Bad Drug Effects, ARCI Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (ARCI-LSD, Dysphoria), but did not cause a significant increase in Drowsiness and Sedation. These results are also similar to those produced by pentazocine in a published study which reported a statistically significant increase in the VAS score for Bad Drug Effects and the score for ARCI-LSD (Dysphoria). Eluxadoline produced dysphoric effects consistent with kappa agonist activity related effects produced by pentazocine and butorphanol.
In summary, eluxadoline appears to be so related in its action to substances already listed as having potential for abuse, and which have been controlled in schedule IV of the CSA, to make it likely that eluxadoline will have the same potential for abuse as those substances.
Eluxadoline has high affinity at the MOR, KOR, and DOR. Eluxadoline lacked significant affinity for other binding sites including those associated with abuse potential. Similar to butorphanol (schedule IV), eluxadoline acted as an agonist at both MOR and KOR, but acted as an antagonist at DOR. Pentazocine (schedule IV) also has agonist activity at KOR.
In the Irwin test (a test of general behavioral responses), there were no noticeable behavioral changes produced by eluxadoline at three subcutaneous doses of 500, 1000, or 2000 mg/kg in mice. Similarly, there were no changes in motor activity, reflexes, excitation, body tone, righting reflex, and rotorod tests or in body temperature in rats following oral administration of eluxadoline (30 or 300 mg/kg). However, intravenous administration of eluxadoline HCl (5, 10 and 20 mg/kg/day) in rats for 14 days followed by a 14-day recovery period produced classic opioid-related behaviors including general arousal, handling reactivity, stereotypy, tail pinch response, touch response, changes in posture, gait, mobility, righting reflex, respiration, and hindlimb splay. In a toxicity study in Cynomolgus monkeys, animals treated with eluxadoline (50, 100, and 200 mg/kg/day) or vehicle via oral gavage for nine months, followed by a four-week recovery period (for the vehicle and 200 mg/kg groups), exhibited no changes in behavior during the 39-week treatment period. In a dose-finding study, daily intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg eluxadoline for seven days produced opioid-associated behaviors (decreased respiration and periods of unconsciousness). These effects were severely pronounced following 40 mg/kg dose. All animals in the highest dose group (40 mg/kg reduced to 30 mg/kg on the second day of the dosing after one animal died) exhibited opioid overdose symptoms such as decreased activity, unresponsiveness, decreased body temperature and respiration rates. Opioid antagonist naloxone (0.1 mg/kg) was administered either subcutaneously or intravenously to more or less severely affected animals, respectively. Upon reducing the eluxadoline dose from 40 mg/kg to 30 mg/kg, all animals continued to respond with opioid overdose symptoms.
In a hot-plate test for studying anti-nociceptive effects in mice, oral administration of eluxadoline up to doses of 1000 mg/kg showed no significant analgesic responses. However, subcutaneous administration of both 10 and 50 mg/kg eluxadoline caused significant increases in hot plate latencies and produced concurrent opioid-associated behaviors such as Straub tail and increased limb tone.
As mentioned in the HHS scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation, drug discrimination tests in animals serve as an important experimental method for predicting whether the effects of a given test drug will be similar to that of a standard training drug used in the study. In drug discrimination studies conducted in Rhesus monkeys trained to discriminate between subcutaneously administered morphine (1 mg/kg) and vehicle using shock stimulus termination procedure, intravenous administration of 17.8 mg/kg dose of eluxadoline HCl produced full generalization to morphine (1 mg/kg) in the only monkey tested. When this same monkey was tested at 10 mg/kg, there was no generalization. However, the 10 mg/kg dose of eluxadoline produced full generalization in a different monkey. The lowest doses of eluxadoline at 1.0 (n = 1) and 3.2 mg/kg (n = 2) produced no generalization (<20%) to morphine. Eluxadoline, as a mu and kappa opioid agonist, produces an interoceptive cue similar to that of mu opioid agonist, morphine (schedule II). These data are similar to those from several published human studies in which butorphanol (schedule IV, mu and kappa opioid agonist), pentazocine (schedule IV, kappa opioid agonist) and tramadol (schedule IV, mu opioid agonist
Drug self-administration tests in animals are used to evaluate the rewarding effects of drugs. There is a good correlation between those drugs that are self-administered by animals and those that are abused by humans. The data from self-administration studies provide a measure for abuse potential. In a self-administration study with monkeys (n = 5) trained to self-administer heroin (0.032 mg/kg/infusion in two monkeys or 0.01 mg/kg/infusion in three monkeys), the 0.32 and 1.0 mg/kg/infusion doses of eluxadoline HCl did not produce self-administration in one monkey trained to self-administer the higher 0.032 mg/kg/infusion dose of heroin, or in three other monkeys trained to self-administer the lower 0.001 mg/kg/infusion dose of heroin. When the highest dose of eluxadoline HCI (3.2 mg/kg/infusion) was tested first in the two monkeys trained at the 0.032 mg/kg/infusion dose of heroin, the self-administration rate of eluxadoline HCl (10-19 infusions/session) was less than that of heroin, but more than that of saline (2-4 infusions/session). The self-administration of eluxadoline in animals seems similar to that of the mu and kappa opioid agonist, butorphanol (schedule IV), a kappa opioid agonist, pentazocine (schedule IV) and another mu opioid agonist prodrug, tramadol (schedule IV).
In a clinical study, the abuse potential, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of orally administered eluxadoline (100, 300 and 1000 mg) were compared with positive control drug, oxycodone (30 and 60 mg) in healthy non-dependent recreational opioid users. Of the subjects who received any study treatment, a total of 33 subjects completed the study. On the primary subjective measure of VAS Drug Liking, eluxadoline at the two supratherapeutic doses (300 and 1000 mg) produced statistically significant higher maximum (Emax) scores on Drug Liking compared to placebo. When compared to that of either dose of oxycodone on Drug Liking, all three tested doses of eluxadoline (100, 300 and 1000 mg) showed statistically significant lower Emax scores. Eighteen of the 36 subjects who received eluxadoline showed a statistically significant positive response on Drug Liking with at least one of the eluxadoline doses tested. Data from the secondary subjective measures showed that oxycodone (30 and 60 mg) statistically significantly increased scores on other positive subjective responses such as the VAS for Overall Drug Liking, Take Drug Again, Subjective Drug Value, Good Drug Effects, High, and ARCI-MBG (Euphoria). At supratherapeutic oral doses (300 and/or 1000 mg), eluxadoline elicited statistically significant increases as compared to the placebo in positive subjective responses such as VAS for Take Drug Again, Subjective Drug Value, Good Drug Effects, High, and ARCI-MBG (Euphoria). The positive subjective responses to eluxadoline were most often statistically significantly less than those produced by either dose of oxycodone (30 and 60 mg). The HHS states that these results are similar to those produced by a kappa opioid agonist, pentazocine (schedule IV). Eluxadoline at all doses elicited a small but significant increase in the VAS score for Drug Disliking, but it happened one to two hours before the peak Drug Liking response. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences in Drug Disliking between eluxadoline and oxycodone (60 mg). Eluxadoline also produced a statistically significant increase in VAS Bad Drug Effects, and ARCI-LSD (Dysphoria), but did not cause a significant increase in Drowsiness and Sedation. These results are also similar to those produced by pentazocine in a published study which reported a statistically significant increase in the VAS score for Bad Drug Effects and the score for ARCI-LSD (Dysphoria).
Oral administration of eluxadoline produced an increase in several classical opioid-like adverse events (AEs) associated with mu opioid agonists. Eluxadoline (ranging from 14-28%) produced euphoria in a dose-dependent manner and it was greater than that after placebo (5%) but less than that of oxycodone (ranging from 73-76%). Eluxadoline induced centrally-mediated responses such as somnolence (ranging from 19-42%), and it overlaps with the rate reported for oxycodone (38-41%) and placebo (19%). Peripheral opioid-associated AEs such as dry mouth were also mentioned (11-19% for eluxadoline and 11-13% for oxycodone). Pruritus was also reported with a range of 8-11% for eluxadoline and 54-70% for oxycodone. The above AEs support that eluxadoline produced typical opioid-like effects, although these are less frequent than reported for oxycodone.
Another clinical study evaluated the abuse potential and safety of intranasal administration of crushed eluxadoline (100 and 200 mg) in comparison to crushed oxycodone HCl (crushed, 15 and 30 mg) in 31 healthy adult, non-dependent recreational opioid users. On the primary subjective measure of Drug Liking VAS, eluxadoline (100 and 200 mg) failed to produce Emax scores on Drug Liking that were statistically different from that of placebo while oxycodone at both tested doses (15 and 30 mg) produced statistically significant higher maximum (Emax) scores compared to placebo. Results for the secondary subjective measures show oxycodone (15 and 30 mg) significantly increased scores on positive subjective responses including the VAS for Overall Drug Liking, Take Drug Again, Subjective Drug Value, Good Drug Effects, High, and ARCI-MBG (Euphoria). Eluxadoline (100 and 200 mg) produced significant increases compared to placebo in these positive subjective responses. The positive subjective responses to eluxadoline were most often significantly less than those produced by either dose of oxycodone. Intranasal eluxadoline produced a small but statistically significant increase in the VAS for Drug Disliking while oxycodone did not. Eluxadoline also produced a significant increase in VAS Bad Drug Effects, ARCI-LSD (Dysphoria), Drowsiness, and Sedation. Oxycodone at both doses increased each of these negative subjective measurements, to a degree significantly greater than that of placebo but similar to the high dose of eluxadoline. Subjects identified eluxadoline as an opioid to a degree that was less than that of oxycodone. Intranasal administration of eluxadoline caused adverse events such as euphoria after the 100 mg (22%) and the 200 mg doses (19%). Rate of euphoria following eluxadoline was less than that of oxycodone at 15 mg (44%) and 30 mg (67%), and greater than placebo (0%). All incidences of euphoria produced by eluxadoline were mild in intensity.
The clinical efficacy studies conducted with oral eluxadoline (75 and 100 mg/BID) reported abuse-related AEs. The AE of euphoric mood was reported by only two IBS-d patients in the pooled Phase 2 and 3 safety trials (0.2% of population). The dose of eluxadoline for both these subjects was 100 mg BID. Similarly, the AE of “feeling drunk” was reported by only two subjects (0.1% of subjects in the 75 mg group and 0.1% of subjects in the 100 mg group). Other than euphoria, anxiety (1.7%) and somnolence (0.7%)
The half-life of eluxadoline is approximately five hours, with high inter-subject variability. Eluxadoline has a low oral bioavailability due to poor GI permeability and moderate hepatic first-pass extraction involving OATP1B1-mediated hepatic uptake of eluxadoline. Co-administration with food lowered systemic exposures. Biliary excretion accounted for over 80% of overall elimination, while there is a minimal elimination by renal excretion.
Eluxadoline generalized to the stimulus effects of morphine (schedule II) in animal drug discrimination studies. These discriminative stimulus effects are similar to that for butorphanol, a schedule IV mu and kappa opioid receptor agonist and for pentazocine, a schedule IV kappa opioid receptor agonist. In two human abuse potential studies, eluxadoline produced both positive and negative subjective responses. The maximal effects of eluxadoline on Drug Liking are greater than that of placebo, but less than that of oxycodone (schedule II). Eluxadoline at all doses elicited a small but significant increase in the VAS score for Drug Disliking. The negative subjective responses of eluxadoline may be reflective of its kappa opioid receptor agonist properties and these are similar to those of schedule IV opioids, butorphanol and pentazocine. These dysphoric effects may indicate a lower abuse potential of a substance. In human abuse potential studies oral or intranasal administration of eluxadoline produced euphoria with a degree less than that of oxycodone.
As of May 20, 2015, no reports for eluxadoline were identified in either the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS),
In human abuse potential studies, eluxadoline produced both positive and negative subjective responses. The maximal effects of eluxadoline on Drug Liking are greater than that of placebo, but less than that of oxycodone (schedule II). Eluxadoline at all doses elicited a small but significant increase in the VAS score for Drug Disliking. The negative subjective responses of eluxadoline may be reflective of its kappa opioid receptor agonist properties and these are similar to those of schedule IV opioids, butorphanol and pentazocine. These dysphoric effects may indicate a lower abuse potential of eluxadoline.
The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The statute outlines the findings required in placing a drug or other substance in any schedule. 21 U.S.C. 812(b). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS and review of all available data, the Administrator of the DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 812(b), finds that:
(1) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. Eluxadoline has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. The overall abuse potential of eluxadoline is comparable to the schedule IV substances such as pentazocine and butorphanol.
(2) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Recently, the FDA approved eluxadoline as a prescription drug for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-d). Therefore, eluxadoline has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(3) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. Abuse of eluxadoline may lead to limited psychological dependence similar to that of schedule IV drugs, but less than that of schedule III drugs.
Based on these findings, the Administrator of the DEA concludes that eluxadoline, including its salts, isomers and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible, warrants control in schedule IV of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 812(b)(4)).
If this rule is finalized as proposed, eluxadoline would be subject to the CSA's schedule IV regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, importing, exporting, research, and conduct of instructional activities involving schedule IV substances, including the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Any person who becomes registered with the DEA after the effective date of the final rule must take an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including eluxadoline) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a) and (b).
After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant would be required to take an inventory of all controlled substances (including eluxadoline) on hand, on a biennial basis, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.
5.
6.
7.
8.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposed scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures performed “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the procedures and criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563.
This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order
This proposed rule will not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.
The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of this proposed rule is to place eluxadoline, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, into schedule IV of the CSA. No less restrictive measures (
Eluxadoline is a new molecular entity which has not yet been marketed in the United States or any other country. Although the manufacturer is expected to enjoy market exclusivity for many years, the DEA has no basis to determine the level of contracted or outsourced manufacturing activities or the breadth of the distribution network. Furthermore, due to the wide variety of unidentifiable and unquantifiable variables that could potentially influence the dispensing and distribution rates of new pharmaceutical drugs, the DEA is unable to determine the number of potential small entities that might handle eluxadoline. However, the DEA estimates that all persons who would handle, or propose to handle, eluxadoline are currently registered with the DEA to handle schedule IV controlled substances, because it is a pharmaceutical controlled substance intended for medical treatment. Accordingly, the number of DEA registrations authorized to handle schedule IV controlled substances is a reasonable estimate for the maximum number of eluxadoline handlers. Therefore, the DEA estimates that 1.6 million (1,554,254 as of June 2015) controlled substance registrations, representing approximately 427,584 entities, would be the maximum number of entities affected by this rule. The DEA estimates that 418,141 (97.8%) of 427,584 affected entities are “small entities” in accordance with the RFA and SBA size standards.
The DEA anticipates that prospective eluxadoline handlers already handle other schedule IV controlled substances and that the cost impact as a result of placing eluxadoline in schedule IV would be nominal. As the anticipated eluxadoline handlers already handle other scheduled IV controlled substances, they already have DEA registrations and the required security and recordkeeping processes, equipment, and facilities in place, and would only require a nominal increase in security, inventory, recordkeeping and labeling costs.
As discussed above, while the DEA does not have a basis to estimate the number of affected entities, the DEA estimates that the maximum number of affected entities is 427,584 of which 418,141 are estimated to be small entities. Since the affected entities are expected to handle other schedule IV controlled substances and maintain security and recordkeeping facilities and processes consistent with schedule IV controlled substances, the DEA estimates any economic impact will be nominal. Because of these facts, this proposed rule will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
(g) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan revision submitted by the State of Georgia, through Georgia Environmental Protection Division on February 6, 2015, to address the base year emissions inventory and emissions statements requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta Area”). These requirements apply to all ozone nonattainment areas. The Atlanta Area is comprised of 15 counties in Atlanta (Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale). This proposed action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations.
In the Final Rules Section of this
Written comments must be received on or before September 10, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0248 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached at (404) 562-9088 and via electronic mail at
For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this
Environmental Protection Agency
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky's September 23, 2011, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KY DAQ), which modifies the SIP by making changes to Kentucky regulation, “
Written comments must be received on or before September 10, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0384 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Zuri Farngalo of the Air Regulatory Management Section, in the Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Farngalo may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9152 or via electronic mail at
On September 23, 2011, KY DAQ submitted a SIP revision to EPA for approval that makes several changes to Kentucky's regulations at 401 Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR) 51:052,
Kentucky's requested SIP revision would revise 401 KAR 51:052 by: (1) Changing Section 5, paragraph (6)(b) to authorize new or modified sources to offset their emission increases with emission reductions achieved by shutting down an existing unit or curtailing production or operating hours prior to the new source application date (if specified conditions are met), (2) adding new and more comprehensive language to Section 5, paragraph (6)(b) describing how to calculate offsetting emission reductions obtained from a source shutdown or curtailment (3) amending Section 4, paragraph (3)(a) to establish an offset ratio of at least 1:1 for pollutants other than volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), and (4) making changes to the introductory paragraph to 401 KAR 51:052 and Section 5, paragraph (3)(e) that update and clarify these provisions.
EPA has reviewed Kentucky's requested changes to 401 KAR 51:052,
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Kentucky Rule 401 KAR 51:052,
EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky's September 23, 2011, SIP revision. EPA has preliminarily determined that the changes to Kentucky's Rule 401 KAR 51:052,
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011)
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements and Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
90-day petition finding, request for information.
We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the smooth hammerhead shark (
Information and comments on the subject action must be received by October 13, 2015.
You may submit comments, information, or data on this document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2015-0103, by either any of the following methods:
•
•
Copies of the petition and related materials are available on our Web site at
Maggie Miller, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8403.
On April 27, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of Wildlife to list the smooth hammerhead shark (
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, “the Services”) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
At the 90-day finding stage, we evaluate the petitioners' request based upon the information in the petition including its references and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90- day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day finding if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for
The smooth hammerhead shark is a circumglobal species found in temperate to warm waters (Compagno, 1984). It occurs close inshore and in shallow waters, over continental shelves, in estuaries and bays, and around coral reefs, but it has also been observed offshore at depths as great as 65-650 feet (20-200 meters (m)) deep (Compagno, 1984; Bester, n.d.). Smooth hammerheads are highly mobile and, within the Sphyrnidae family, are the most tolerant of temperate waters (Compagno, 1984). In the western Atlantic Ocean, the range of the smooth hammerhead shark extends from Nova Scotia to Florida and into the Caribbean Sea, and in the south from southern Brazil to southern Argentina (Compagno, 1984; Bester, n.d). In the eastern Atlantic Ocean, smooth hammerhead sharks can be found from the British Isles to Guinea and farther south through parts of equatorial West Africa. They are also found throughout the Mediterranean Sea (Compagno, 1984; Bester, n.d). In the Indian Ocean, the shark occurs from South Africa, along the southern coast of India and Sri Lanka, to the coasts of Australia. Distribution in the Pacific extends from Vietnam to Japan and includes Australia and New Zealand in the west, the Hawaiian Islands in the central Pacific, and extends from Northern California to the Nayarit state of Mexico, and from Panama to southern Chile in the eastern Pacific (Compagno, 1984; Bester, n.d).
The smooth hammerhead shark gets its common name from its large, laterally expanded head that resembles a hammer (Bester, n.d.). The unique head shape allows for easy distinction of hammerheads of the Sphyrnidae family from other types of sharks. The smooth hammerhead is characterized by a ventrally located and strongly arched mouth with smooth or slightly serrated teeth (Compagno, 1984). The body of the shark is fusiform with a moderately hooked first dorsal fin and a lower second dorsal fin, and its color ranges from a dark olive to greyish-brown that fades into a white underside (Bester, n.d.).
The general life history characteristics of the smooth hammerhead shark are that of a long-lived, slow-growing, and late maturing species (Compagno, 1984; Casper
The smooth hammerhead shark is a high trophic level predator (Cortés, 1999) and opportunistic feeder that consumes a variety of teleosts, small sharks, skates and stingrays, crustaceans, and cephalopods (Compagno, 1984). The species has also been observed scavenging from nets and hooks.
The petition contains information on the species, including the taxonomy, species description, geographic distribution, habitat, population status and trends, and factors contributing to the species' decline. According to the petition, all five causal factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of the smooth hammerhead shark: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
In the following sections, we evaluate the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files to determine if the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that an endangered or threatened listing may be warranted as a result of any of these ESA factors. Because we were requested to list a global population and, alternatively, DPSs, we will first determine if the petition presents substantial information that the petitioned action is warranted for the global population. If it does, then we will make a positive finding on the petition and conduct a review of the species range-wide. If after this review we find that the species does not warrant listing range-wide, then we will consider whether the populations requested by the petitioners qualify as DPSs and warrant listing. If the petition does not present substantial information that the global population may warrant listing, and it has requested that we list any populations of the species as threatened or endangered, then we will consider whether the petition provides substantial information that the requested population(s) may qualify as DPSs under the discreteness and significance criteria of our joint DPS Policy, and if listing any of those DPSs may be warranted. Below, we summarize the information presented in the petition and in our files on the status of the species and the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors that may be affecting the species' risk of global extinction and determine whether a reasonable person would conclude that an endangered or threatened listing may be warranted as a result of any of these factors.
The petition does not provide an estimate of global population abundance or trends for the smooth hammerhead shark. The petition refers to the IUCN Redlist status assessment (Casper
The petition provides evidence of population declines in a number of regions throughout the smooth
The petition contends that smooth hammerhead sharks are at risk of extinction throughout their range due to pollutants, especially those that are able to bioaccumulate and biomagnify to high concentrations at high trophic levels. Of particular concern to the petitioners are high mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in smooth hammerhead shark tissues. International agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization, have set a recommended maximum of 1 µg/g concentration of mercury in seafood tissues (García-Hernández
Information from the petition and in our files suggests that the primary threat to the smooth hammerhead shark is from overutilization by fisheries. Smooth hammerhead sharks are both targeted and taken as bycatch in many global fisheries. Smooth hammerhead sharks face fishing pressure from commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries that use a variety of gear types to harvest these sharks: Pelagic and bottom longlines, handlines, gillnets, purse seines, and pelagic and bottom trawls (Camhi
In the northwestern Atlantic, smooth hammerhead sharks are mainly caught as bycatch in the U.S. commercial longline and net fisheries and by U.S. recreational fishermen using rod and reel, albeit rarely (NMFS, 2014b). This
In the southwestern Atlantic, industrial landings of the hammerhead complex (mainly
In the Mediterranean Sea, it is thought that smooth hammerheads may have been fished to functional extinction (Feretti
In the waters off of northwestern Africa, hammerhead sharks are retained primarily as bycatch from the industrial fisheries and catch from the artisanal fisheries operating within this region. Historically, Spanish swordfish gillnet and longline fisheries and European industrial trawl fisheries caught significant amounts of hammerheads (Buencuerpo
In the eastern Pacific Ocean, smooth hammerhead sharks are both targeted and taken as bycatch in industrial and artisanal fisheries (Casper
Smooth hammerhead sharks are also taken as bycatch by the tuna purse-seine fisheries operating in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission convention area of the Eastern Pacific region. Based on data from observers, smooth hammerhead sharks constituted around 1.7 percent of the total bycatch from the tuna purse-seine fleet from 2000-2001. Since the mid-1980s, the tuna purse-seine fishery in the Pacific has been rapidly expanding (Williams and Terawasi, 2011), and despite the increase in fishery effort (or perhaps a consequence of this increased fishing pressure), incidental catch of smooth hammerhead sharks has seen a decline, from a peak of 1,205 individuals in 2004 to 436 individuals in 2011 (CITES, 2013).
In the west-coast based U.S. fisheries, hammerheads are primarily caught as bycatch, and, based on observer data, appear to be relatively rare in the fisheries catch. For example, in the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery, which targets swordfish and common thresher shark and operates off the U.S. Pacific coast, observers recorded only 70 bycaught smooth hammerheads and 2 unidentified hammerheads in 8,698 sets conducted over the past 25 years (from 1990-2015; WCR, 2015).
Throughout the majority of the Indian Ocean and western Pacific, fisheries data in the petition and available in our files are lacking, but shark finning and illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing were identified by the petitioners as threats contributing to the overutilization of the species in these areas. The smooth hammerhead shark is caught in both artisanal and commercial fisheries as directed catch and retained incidental bycatch (Casper
In the central Pacific, smooth hammerhead sharks are bycaught in the Hawaii-based fisheries, but comprise a very small proportion of the bycatch. In fact, from 1995-2006, only 49 smooth hammerhead sharks and 38 unidentified hammerhead sharks were bycaught in the Hawaiian longline fishery, amounting to less than 0.1 percent of all bycaught shark species in the fishery for that time period (Walsh
Given the evidence of historical exploitation of the species and subsequent population declines, and the fact that fishing pressure from industrial and artisanal fisheries may still be high based on available fisheries data and the high value and contribution of smooth hammerhead fins to the international fin trade, we conclude that the information in the petition and in our files suggest that global fisheries are impacting smooth hammerhead shark populations to a degree that raises concern that the species may be at risk of extinction.
The petition asserts that high concentrations of arsenic in smooth hammerhead shark tissues should be considered a significant threat to smooth hammerhead shark populations as it is a possible carcinogenic. The petition refers to Storelli
The petition asserts that the existing international, regional, and national regulations do not adequately protect the smooth hammerhead shark and have been insufficient in preventing population declines. Additionally, the petition asserts that most existing regulations are inadequate because they limit retention of the smooth hammerhead shark and argues that the focus should be on limiting the catch of smooth hammerhead sharks in order to decrease fishery-related mortality, particularly given the species' high post-catch mortality rates. Among the regulations that the petition cites as inadequate are shark finning bans and shark finning regulations. Shark finning bans are currently one of the most widely used forms of shark utilization regulations, and the petition notes that 21 countries, the European Union, and 9 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) have implemented shark finning bans (CITES, 2013). However, the petition contends that these shark finning bans are often ineffective as enforcement is difficult or lacking, implementation in RFMOs and international agreements is not always binding, and catches often go unreported (CITES, 2013). The petition also states that shark finning regulations tend to have loopholes that can be exploited to allow continued finning. Many shark finning regulations require that both the carcass and the fins be landed, but not necessarily naturally attached. Instead, the regulations impose a fin to carcass ratio weight, which is usually 5 percent (Dulvy
In the Atlantic United States, smooth hammerhead sharks are managed as part of the Large Coastal Shark (LCS) complex group under the U.S. Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP). The petition asserts that the inclusion of smooth hammerheads in the LCS complex offers minimal to no protection to the smooth hammerhead shark, and that implementation of Amendment 5 to the HMS FMP does not cover smooth hammerhead sharks. We find that the petitioners are incorrect in their assertion.
Amendments, in general, are rulemakings that amend FMPs, and in 2012, NMFS published a draft of Amendment 5 to the 2006 HMS FMP (77 FR 73029) that proposed measures designed to reduce fishing mortality and effort in order to rebuild various overfished Atlantic shark species while ensuring that a limited sustainable shark fishery for certain species could be maintained. After considering all of the public comments on Draft Amendment 5, NMFS split Amendment 5 into two rulemakings: Amendment 5a (which addressed scalloped hammerhead, sandbar, blacknose, and Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks) and Amendment 5b (which addressed dusky sharks).
Amendment 5a was implemented in 2013 (78 FR 40318) and was a rulemaking designed to maintain the rebuilding of sandbar sharks, end overfishing and rebuild scalloped hammerhead and Atlantic blacknose sharks, establish total allowable catches (TAC) and commercial quotas for Gulf of Mexico blacknose and blacktip sharks, and establish new recreational shark fishing management measures. Although Amendment 5a focuses specifically on the rebuilding of scalloped hammerhead sharks, the regulatory measures affect and likely benefit the entire hammerhead complex. For example, with the implementation of Amendment 5a, commercial hammerhead shark quotas (which include smooth, scalloped and great hammerheads) have been separated from the aggregated LCS management group quotas, with links between the Atlantic hammerhead shark quota and the Atlantic aggregated LCS quotas, and links between the Gulf of Mexico hammerhead shark quota and Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS quotas. In other words, if either the aggregated LCS or hammerhead shark quota is reached, then both the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups will close. These quota linkages were implemented as an additional conservation benefit for the hammerhead shark complex due to the concern of hammerhead shark bycatch and additional mortality from fishermen targeting other sharks within the LCS complex. The separation of the hammerhead species for quota monitoring purposes from other sharks within the LCS management unit allows for better management of the specific utilization of the hammerhead shark complex, which includes smooth hammerhead sharks.
Additionally, although the petition asserts that Amendment 5 did not cover the smooth hammerhead shark, it acknowledges that an applicable protection for smooth hammerhead sharks from Amendment 5a is the minimum size catch requirement for recreational fishermen, which has been set at 6.5 feet (198 cm). However, the petition notes that this minimum size is below the size at maturity for smooth hammerhead sharks (estimated at 210-250 cm for males and 270 cm for females), and, as such, allows for the continued catch of immature smooth hammerhead sharks.
Finally, although not part of Amendment 5a but still applicable to the smooth hammerhead shark, we note that starting in 2011, U.S. fishermen using pelagic longline (PLL) gear and operating in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea, and dealers buying from vessels that have PLL gear onboard, have been prohibited from retaining onboard, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale any part or whole carcass of hammerhead sharks of the family Sphyrnidae (except for
While we find that the petitioners are incorrect in their assertion that the inclusion of smooth hammerheads in the LCS complex offers minimal to no protection to the smooth hammerhead shark and the implementation of Amendment 5 (presumably Amendment 5a) does not cover smooth hammerhead sharks, we will evaluate the adequacy of these and the other existing regulations in relation to the threat of overutilization of the species during the status review.
In terms of other national measures, the petition provides a list of countries that have prohibited shark fishing in their respective waters, but notes that many suffer from enforcement related issues, citing cases of illegal fishing and shark finning. The petition also highlights enforceability issues associated with international agreements regarding smooth hammerhead shark utilization and trade. Based on the information presented in the petition as well as information in our files, we find that further evaluation of the adequacy of existing regulatory measures is needed to determine whether this may be a
The petition contends that “biological vulnerability” in the form of long gestation periods, late maturity, large size, relatively infrequent reproduction, and high post-catch mortality rates exacerbate the threat of overutilization and increase the species' susceptibility to extinction. The petition cites Cortés
The petition also contends that the species' tendency to form juvenile aggregations increases the species' susceptibility to extinction. Juveniles of the species have been known to aggregate in shallow, coastal waters (Zeeberg
Thus, the available information in the petition and in our files suggests that the species' natural biological vulnerability (including high post-catch mortality rates and aggregating behavior) may present a threat that warrants further exploration to see if it is exacerbating the threat of overutilization and contributing to the species' risk of extinction that is cause for concern.
We conclude that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that a combination of three of the section 4(a)(1) factors (overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural factors) may be causing or contributing to an increased risk of extinction for the smooth hammerhead shark.
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, and based on the above analysis, we conclude the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned action of listing the smooth hammerhead shark as threatened or endangered may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a status review of the species. During our status review, we will first determine whether the species is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become so (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its range. If it is not, then we will consider whether the populations identified by the petitioners meet the DPS policy criteria, and if so, whether any of these are threatened or endangered. If no populations meet the DPS policy criteria, then we will consider whether a similarity of appearance listing is warranted. We now initiate this review, and thus, the smooth hammerhead shark is considered to be a candidate species (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004). Within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (April 27, 2016), we will make a finding as to whether listing the species (or any petitioned DPSs) as endangered or threatened is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If listing the species (or any petitioned DPSs) or a similarity of appearance listing is found to be warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before developing and publishing a final rule.
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on whether the smooth hammerhead shark is endangered or threatened. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) life history in marine environments, including identified nursery grounds; (4) historical and current data on smooth hammerhead shark bycatch and retention in industrial, commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries worldwide; (5) historical and current data on smooth hammerhead shark discards in global fisheries; (6) data on the trade of smooth hammerhead shark products, including fins, jaws, meat, and teeth; (7) any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; (8) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitats; (9) population structure information, such as genetics data; and (10) management, regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
A complete list of references is available upon request to the Office of Protected Resources (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
90-day petition finding, request for information, and initiation of status review.
We, NMFS, announce the 90-day finding on a petition to list the bigeye thresher shark (
Information and comments on the subject action must be received by October 13, 2015
You may submit comments, information, or data, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0089” by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (301) 427-8491.
On April 27, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of Wildlife requesting that we list the bigeye thresher shark (
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a “species,” which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (“DPS Policy”; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, the determination of whether a species is threatened or endangered shall be based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to
At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in the petition, including its references, and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude that it supports the petitioner's assertions. Conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at issue (
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-governmental organizations, such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (
The bigeye thresher shark
The bigeye thresher shark possesses an elongated upper caudal lobe almost equal to its body length, which is unique to the Alopiidae family. It has a broad head, a moderately long and bulbous snout, curved yet broad-tipped pectoral fins, distinctive grooves on the head above the gills, and large teeth. The first dorsal fin mid base is closer to the pelvic-fin bases than to the pectoral-fin bases. The caudal tip is broad with a wide terminal lobe. While some of the above characteristics may be shared by
Bigeye thresher sharks are found in a diverse spectrum of locations, including coastal waters over continental shelves, on the high seas in the epipelagic zone far from land, in deep waters near the bottom on continental slopes, and sometimes in shallow inshore waters. They are an epipelagic, neritic, and epibenthic shark, ranging from the surface and in the intertidal to at least 500 m deep, but mostly below 100 m depth. In our files, we found information indicating that bigeye threshers prefer an optimum swimming depth of 240-360 m, water temperature of 10-16 °C, salinity of 34.5-34.7 ppt, and dissolved oxygen range between 3.0-4.0 ml/l (Cao
Bigeye threshers feed on small to medium sized pelagic fishes (
Bigeye thresher sharks have an estimated lifespan of approximately 20-21 years and a maximum total length of about 4.6 m. Maturity in bigeye threshers occurs at 7-13 years and 275-300 cm total length (TL) for males and 8-15 years and 290-341cm (TL) for females. Bigeye threshers have low reproductive capacity of only 2-4 pups per litter (Chen
Below we evaluate the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files to determine if the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that an endangered or threatened listing may be warranted as a result of any of the factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. If requested to list a global population or, alternatively, a DPS, we first determine if the petition presents substantial information that the petitioned action is warranted for the global population. If it does, then we make a positive finding on the petition and conduct a review of the species range-wide. If after this review we find that the species does not warrant listing range-wide, then we will consider whether the populations requested by the petition qualify as DPSs and warrant listing. If the petition does not present substantial information that the global population may warrant listing, but it has requested that we list any distinct populations of the species as threatened or endangered, then we consider whether the petition provides substantial information that the requested population(s) may qualify as DPSs under the discreteness and significance criteria of our joint DPS Policy, and if listing any of those DPSs may be warranted. We summarize our analysis and conclusions regarding the information presented by the petitioners and in our files on the specific ESA section 4(a)(1) factors that we find may be affecting the species' risk of global extinction below.
The petition does not provide a population abundance estimate for bigeye thresher sharks, but points to its “vulnerable” status on the IUCN Red List. The petition asserts that a global decline of bigeye thresher sharks has been caused mainly by commercial and recreational fishing (both direct harvest and bycatch), as evidenced by substantial population declines in every area where sufficient historical and current population data exist. In the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic, the petition cites an 80 percent decline in bigeye thresher sharks since the early 2000s, with an estimated average overall decline of 63 percent since the beginning of data collection in 1986. In the Southwest Atlantic, the petition describes the popularity of bigeye threshers in the Brazilian Santos longline fishery, and asserts that some vessels are directly targeting this species specifically for its fins. The petition also describes consistent gradual decreases in catch per unit effort (CPUE) for this species in the region. The petition describes likely declines of bigeye thresher sharks in the Mediterranean based on declines of other pelagic shark species, including congener
The last IUCN assessment of the bigeye thresher shark was completed in 2009, and several estimates of global and subpopulation trends and status have been made and are described in the following text. In the Northwest Atlantic, declines in relative abundance cited by the petitioner were derived from analyses of logbook data, reported in Baum
For the Northeast Atlantic, there are no population abundance estimates available, but data indicate that the species is taken in driftnets and gillnets. In the Mediterranean Sea, estimates show significant declines in thresher shark abundance during the past two decades, reflecting data up to 2006. According to historical data compiled using a generalized linear model, thresher sharks have declined between 96 and 99 percent in abundance and biomass in the Mediterranean Sea (Ferretti
In the Eastern Central Pacific, logbook data show a historical decline of thresher sharks due to pelagic fishing fleet operations. Trends in abundance and biomass of thresher sharks in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean were estimated by comparison of pelagic longline research surveys in the 1950s with recent data (1990s); these data were collected by observers on pelagic longline fishing vessels and standardized to account for differences in depth and soak time. This analysis estimated a decline in combined thresher abundance of 83 percent and a decline in biomass to approximately 5 percent of virgin levels (Ward and Myers, 2005).
In other areas of the world, estimates of thresher shark abundance are limited. Bigeye threshers are recorded in the catches of fisheries operating in the Indo-West Pacific, but catches of the species are likely very under-reported. An analysis of purse seine and longline observer data from the Western and Central Pacific produced no clear catch trends for thresher sharks (
In conclusion, across the species' global range we find evidence suggesting that population abundance of the bigeye thresher shark is declining or, in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, may be stable at a diminished abundance. While data are still limited with respect to population size and trends, we find the petition and our files sufficient in presenting substantial information on bigeye thresher shark abundance, trends, or status to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted.
The petition indicated three main categories of threats to the bigeye thresher shark: overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We discuss each of these below based on information in the petition, and the information readily available in our files.
The petition states that “the bigeye thresher has shown substantial population declines in every area where sufficient historical and current population data exists” and lists four categories of overutilization: historical, directed, incidental, and recreational. The petition describes historical exploitation as the first category of overutilization for the species, predominantly in the Northwest and Central Atlantic and Eastern Central Pacific. In the Northwest and Central Atlantic, bigeye threshers were historically caught in pelagic longline fisheries. Bigeye threshers have been a prohibited species in all commercial fisheries in the U.S. Atlantic since 2000. Since these regulations became effective in 2000, relative abundance of thresher sharks (again, only at the genus level) in the western North Atlantic Ocean appears to have stabilized or even be increasing since the late 1990s (Baum and Blanchard, 2010; Cortés, 2007). However, it should be noted that bigeye threshers are still caught as bycatch and occasionally landed in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean despite its prohibited status (NMFS, 2012; 2013), which may hinder the ability of the population to rebound from the historical declines.
As previously mentioned, the petition also states that logbook data from the Eastern Central Pacific shows a historical decline of bigeye thresher sharks due to pelagic fishing fleet operations known to take this species. Trends in abundance and biomass of thresher sharks in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean were estimated by comparison of pelagic longline research surveys in the 1950s with recent data (1990s); these data were collected by observers on pelagic longline fishing vessels and standardized to account for differences in depth and soak time. For example, in the 1990's, longliners deployed more hooks (averaging 2240 hooks per day compared to 322 hooks in the 1950s) over a wider depth range
In addition to broad commercial harvest of the species, the petition states that direct catch related to the shark fin trade has resulted in population decline, and that bigeye thresher sharks are targeted and preferentially retained for their fins. For example, the petition stated in the Indo-West Pacific, a single thresher fin can fetch US $250, creating incentives that would drive overutilization. However, this statement is not entirely correct. While it is true that high prices are paid for thresher sharks, the value of US $250 was not for a single fin, but rather for the entire shark (Gilman
In the Indian Ocean, the status and abundance of shark species is poorly known despite a long history of research and more than 60 years of commercial exploitation by large-scale tuna fisheries (Romanov
Indirect catch is another category of overutilization identified by the petition, which states that post-release mortality may be high in the species. However, no information is provided in the petition to connect the effect of bycatch on population declines of the species. In the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean, while there are no target fisheries for thresher sharks, they are taken as bycatch in various fisheries, including the Moroccan driftnet fishery in the southwest Mediterranean. They are also caught by industrial and semi-industrial longline fisheries and by artisanal gillnet fisheries. In our files, we found evidence that in the last two decades, thresher sharks (common and bigeye) have declined between 96 and 99 percent in abundance and biomass in the Mediterranean Sea (Ferretti, 2008).
Although bigeye thresher sharks have been a prohibited species in U.S. Atlantic commercial fisheries since 2000, they are still incidentally taken as bycatch on pelagic longlines and in gillnets on the East Coast. For example, in our files, we found that since the prohibition on bigeye threshers came into effect in 2000, approximately 1,493 lbs, dressed weight (677 kg) of bigeye thresher were landed in the Atlantic (NMFS, 2012; 2014) despite its prohibited status. In 2010, the United States reported that bigeye thresher represented the second largest amount of dead discards in the Atlantic commercial fleet, reporting a total of 46 t (NOAA, 2010 Report to ICCAT). In 2011, this number dropped to 27 t of bigeye thresher dead discards (NOAA, 2011 Report to ICCAT). Further, several recent reports assessing the vulnerability of bigeye threshers and other pelagic sharks to bycatch in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery characterized the bigeye thresher as highly vulnerable (Cortes, 2010; Cortes, 2012; Gallagher
In the Southwest Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Brazil, bigeye threshers represent almost 100 percent of thresher sharks caught in longline fisheries (Amorin, 1998). The landed catch and CPUE of bigeye thresher shark in this fishery increased from 1971 to 1989, and then gradually decreased from 1990 to 2001; however, this does not necessarily reflect stock abundance because changes in the depth of fishing operations also occurred, which may
In the Eastern Central Pacific, the petition points to the fact that bigeye threshers have been recorded as bycatch in purse seine fleets operating in this region, in which bigeye threshers comprised 1 percent of shark species caught during a Shark Characteristics Sampling Program conducted from 1994-2004 (Roman-Verdesoto and Orozco-Zöller, 2005). Bycatch for this report was defined as sharks that were discarded dead after being removed from the net and placed on the vessel. Since 2010, catches of thresher sharks in this fishery have fluctuated between 10 t and 14 t; however, in a preliminary productivity-susceptibility assessment, bigeye threshers were characterized as having a low susceptibility to this fishery (IAATC, 2009). Complete bycatch and discard data are not readily available from longline fleets in the Eastern Pacific. In our files, we found that bigeye thresher sharks are minor components of U.S. West Coast fisheries, taken incidentally and presumably not overexploited, at least locally. The bigeye thresher occurs regularly but in low numbers, comprising only approximately 9 percent of common thresher catch (PFMC, 2003). Overall, we found that apart from blue and silky sharks, there are no stock assessments available for shark species in the Eastern Pacific, and hence the impacts of bycatch on the population are unknown (IATTC, 2014). However, despite a lack of information regarding present levels of bycatch occurring in other fisheries throughout the Eastern Pacific, as described earlier, thresher sharks were estimated to have experienced an 83 percent decline in this part of the species' range as a result of fishing mortality in longline fisheries. Given the high rates of bycatch-related mortality observed in this species throughout other parts of its range (
We found evidence that bigeye threshers are known to interact with longline fisheries throughout the Indo-Pacific. In the Western and Central Pacific, where sharks represent 25 percent of the longline fishery catch, observer data showed that bigeye thresher shark is the 7th most commonly bycaught species of shark out of a total 49 species reported by observers (Molony, 2007). We found that bigeye threshers are commonly taken as bycatch in longline fisheries in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, in which they exhibit at-vessel and/or post-release mortality of 50 percent, and nearly 99 percent are finned and subsequently discarded (Bromhead, 2012). Further, in a species status snapshot for thresher sharks in the Western and Central Pacific, Clarke
In the Indian Ocean, while fisheries are directed at other species, bigeye threshers are commonly caught as bycatch and catch rates are considered high (IOTC, 2011; Hererra and Pierre, 2011). For example, bycatch of bigeye threshers has been recorded in Japanese and Taiwanese longline fisheries. According to Japanese observer data, 162 bigeye threshers were bycaught in 6 months (from July 2010 to January 2011). These data do not include live-released bigeye thresher sharks (Ardill
Overall, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the actual levels of bycatch of bigeye thresher shark occurring throughout its range; however, it is likely that these rates are significantly under-reported due to a lack of comprehensive observer coverage in areas of its range in which the highest fishing pressure occurs, as well as a tendency for fishers to not record discards in fishery logbooks. Nevertheless, given the prevalence of bigeye threshers as incidental catch throughout its range and the species' observed high hooking and post-release mortality rates, combined with the species' low productivity, bycatch-related fishing mortality may be a threat placing the species at an increased risk of extinction.
The petition identified recreational fishing as the fourth category of overutilization. In our files, we found evidence that thresher sharks, particularly common threshers, are valued by recreational sport fishermen throughout the species' U.S. East Coast and West Coast range; however, bigeye threshers do not appear to be as important in recreational fisheries and are largely prohibited in many fisheries within the United States. The petition described results from Heberer (2010), which identified the potential negative impact of recreational fishing on the survival of congener,
Overall, trends in the North West and Central Atlantic Ocean suggest that the species experienced historical declines from overexploitation, but may be stabilized and possibly increasing in recent years, although there is considerable uncertainty regarding these trends. Elsewhere across the species' range, information in the petition and in our files suggests that the species may continue to experience declines as a result of overutilization from both direct and indirect fishing pressure. In summary, the petition, references cited, and information in our files comprise substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted because of overutilization for commercial purposes.
The petition points to “virtually non-existent international regulatory protections” to assert that bigeye threshers qualify for listing due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. For example, the petition mentions the lack of protections from the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) for the bigeye thresher shark, but then states that even if the species was listed under CITES, it would still be inadequate due to the fact that a CITES listing would only address threats associated with the international trade of the species, and would not address such impacts as bycatch. Although a CITES Appendix II listing or international reporting requirements would provide better data on the global catch and trade of the bigeye thresher shark, the lack of a CITES listing or requirements does not suggest that current regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the bigeye thresher shark population from becoming threatened or endangered under the ESA. The petition also asserts that the recent listing of bigeye thresher shark under Appendix II of the Convention of Migratory Species (CMS) is also inadequate given that the United States and other range states are not Member Parties to CMS and are therefore not bound by the requirements imposed by the Appendix II listing. The petition further states that the Convention text is only suggestive and not self-executing upon the listing of a species. On the contrary, we find that a CMS Appendix II listing now encourages international cooperation towards conservation of the species, and although the United States is not currently a party to CMS, the United States is a signatory to a number of CMS instruments for the conservation of various marine species, including sharks.
The petition also asserts that finning regulations and species-specific retention bans are “inadequate” for protecting the bigeye thresher shark species because they may still be caught, either directly or indirectly. The petition also cites several regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) that implement a 5 percent fin-to-carcass ratio regulation, describes what the petitioner contends are potential loopholes in those regulations, and states that these general regulations are inadequate for the bigeye thresher shark, whose larger fins make it a more targeted species. The petition further contends that species-specific retention bans for bigeye threshers, such as the ones implemented by ICCAT and IOTC that specifically prohibit the retention, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale any part or whole carcass of bigeye thresher sharks, are also inadequate largely because they do not address incidental catch and subsequent high mortality rates of the species. Based on the information presented in the petition and in our files, we find that the bigeye thresher shark is highly valued for its fins, and can be identified in the shark fin market at the species level. While regulations banning the finning of sharks are a common form of shark management and have been adopted by far more countries and regional fishery management organizations than the petition lists (see HSI, 2012), we agree with the petition that due to high rates of hooking mortality observed in this species as a result of incidental catch, prohibitions on the retention of bigeye thresher or restrictions on the finning of sharks may not be adequate to protect the bigeye thresher from fishing mortality rates that may contribute to its extinction risk, especially given the species' significantly low productivity and intrinsic rate of population increase.
In addition to the inadequacy of international regulations, the petition states that “while the U.S. has attempted to protect the bigeye thresher shark in U.S. waters, piecemeal protections that fail to cover the species throughout its migratory range have proven to be unsuccessful.” Though U.S. regulations by their jurisdictional nature only cover U.S. fishers, we do not agree that this makes them inadequate. We find that U.S. national fishing regulations include numerous regulatory mechanisms for both sharks in general, and bigeye threshers specifically, that may help protect the species. For example, in the U.S. Atlantic, the bigeye thresher has been a prohibited species in both commercial and recreational fisheries since 2000 and 1999, respectively, under the 1999 Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. In addition, current management measures for the Atlantic shark fisheries include the following: commercial quotas, commercial retention limits, limited entry, time-area closures, and recreational bag limits. Sharks are required to be landed with fins naturally attached to the carcass. Additionally, several U.S. states have prohibited the sale or trade of shark fins/products as well, including Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, New York, and Massachusetts, subsequently decreasing the United States' contribution to the fin trade. For example, after the state of Hawaii prohibited finning in its waters in 2000 and required shark fins to be landed with their corresponding carcasses in the state, shark fin imports from the United States into Hong Kong declined significantly (54 percent decrease, from 374 to 171 tonnes), as Hawaii could no longer be used as a fin trading center for the international fisheries operating and finning in the Central Pacific (Miller, 2014). Except for smooth dogfish (
Overall, while measures may be implemented to reduce bycatch, we found no evidence that these measures have been incorporated into common practice throughout the species' range, particularly in areas where fishing pressure is most concentrated. Further, while numerous finning and species-specific retention bans have been implemented, these regulations fail to address the species' high rate of bycatch-related mortality. In summary, the petition, references cited, and information in our files comprise substantial information indicating that the species may be impacted by the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms in parts of its range, such that listing may be warranted.
The petition states that the biological constraints of the bigeye thresher shark, such as its low reproduction rate (typically 2-4 pups a year), coupled with a late age of maturity (approximately 12-14 years for females, and slightly earlier for males, between 9-10 years) contribute to the species' vulnerability to harvesting and its inability to recover rapidly. We agree with the petition that the bigeye thresher shark exhibits relatively slow growth rates and low fecundity. An ecological risk assessment conducted to inform the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) categorized the relative risk of overexploitation of the 11 major species of pelagic sharks, including the bigeye thresher shark (Cortés
We conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the ESA section (4)(a)(1) threats of “present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range” or “disease or predation” may be causing or contributing to an increased risk of extinction for the global population of the bigeye thresher shark. However, we do conclude that the petition and information in our files present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the section 4(a)(1) factor “overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes,” as well as “inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms” and “other manmade or natural factors,” may be causing or contributing to an increased risk of extinction for the species.
Based on the above information and the criteria specified in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2), we find that the petition and information readily available in our files present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action of listing the bigeye thresher shark worldwide as threatened or endangered may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant to whether the bigeye thresher shark is endangered or threatened. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) life history in marine environments, including identified nursery grounds; (4) historical and current data on bigeye thresher shark bycatch and retention in industrial, commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries worldwide; (5) historical and current data on bigeye thresher shark discards in global fisheries; (6) data on the trade of bigeye thresher shark products, including fins, jaws, meat, and teeth; (7) any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; (8) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitats; (9) population structure information, such as genetics data; and (10) management, regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
A complete list of references is available upon request to the Office of Protected Resources (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that we have determined that it is necessary to add to the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual two treatment options for use in controlling imported fire ant. We have prepared treatment evaluation documents that describe the new treatment options and provide justification as to why they are effective at neutralizing imported fire ant. In addition, we have prepared a supplemental environmental assessment to update the existing environmental assessment for imported fire ant treatments. We are making the treatment evaluation documents and the supplemental environmental assessment available for review and comment.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 13, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0046, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Mr. Charles L. Brown, Imported Fire Ant Quarantine Policy Manager, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2119.
The regulations in 7 CFR chapter III are intended, among other things, to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests and noxious weeds into or within the United States. Under the regulations, certain plants, fruits, vegetables, and other articles must be treated before they may be moved into the United States or interstate. The phytosanitary treatments regulations contained in part 305 of 7 CFR chapter III (referred to below as the regulations) set out standards for treatments required in parts 301, 318, and 319 of 7 CFR chapter III for fruits, vegetables, and other articles.
Section 305.3 of the regulations sets forth a notice-based process for adding, revising, and removing the treatments from the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)
• PPQ has determined that an approved treatment schedule is ineffective at neutralizing the targeted plant pest(s);
• PPQ has determined that, in order to neutralize the targeted plant pest(s), the treatment schedule must be administered using a different process than was previously used;
• PPQ has determined that a new treatment schedule is effective, based on efficacy data, and that ongoing trade in an article or articles may be adversely impacted unless the new treatment schedule is approved for use; or
• The use of a treatment schedule is no longer authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or by any other Federal entity.
In order to limit the artificial spread of the imported fire ant (IFA), domestic movement of all nursery stock (containerized or balled-and-burlapped) and grass sod from IFA-infested areas of the United States to uninfested areas is regulated under 7 CFR 301.81-2. Specifically, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) uses ant bait products in conjunction with chemical treatment to prevent the artificial spread and dissemination of IFA. The quarantine requirements involve the use of chemical treatments on commodities to insure that shipments from nurseries, sod farms, and field-growing nursery facilities are free of IFA. Changes in availability of insecticides that are effective against IFA, as well as ensuring a range of pest management options, requires APHIS to periodically evaluate new treatment options.
Currently, ant bait products are used in conjunction with the application of a chlorpyrifos (insecticide) drench treatment to prevent the artificial spread of IFA. Although effective, we have determined that it is necessary to modify the technique used to apply drench treatment to increase the effectiveness of the treatment. In addition, we are adding two options to the list of insecticidal baits that are already approved for use for IFA. The additional insecticidal baits are being added to provide a broader range of chemical treatment options and are not being proposed as additional treatments beyond what is currently required in the quarantine program. Both products have commercial uses in nurseries and will give growers additional options for the bait treatment of field grown nursery stock or for use in the imported fire ant detection, control, exclusion, and enforcement program for nurseries producing containerized plants (7 CFR 301.81-11).
Therefore, APHIS has added two additional insecticidal baits, Abamectin and Metaflumizone, to the list of chemicals already allowed in the IFA program and modified a drench treatment (Chlorpyrifos) for balled-and-burlapped nursery stock for use in control of IFA.
The reasons for these changes are further described in two treatment evaluation documents (TEDs) we have prepared to support this action. In addition, we have prepared a supplemental environmental assessment (EA) to include the human and environmental impacts that can be reasonably expected to occur as a result of the new treatment options available for controlling IFA; as described in the new treatment evaluation documents. The TEDs and supplemental EA may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (see
After the close of the comment period, APHIS will publish a notice announcing our final determination and, if appropriate, any changes we made as a result of the comments.
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice advises the public of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's record of decision for the final environmental impact statement titled “Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach.”
Effective August 11, 2015.
You may read the final environmental impact statement and the record of decision in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.
The record of decision, final environmental impact statement, and supporting information may also be found by visiting the APHIS feral swine environmental impact statement Web page at
Dr. Kimberly Wagner, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services, 732 Lois Drive, Sun Prairie, WI; (608) 837-2737;
On June 12, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations in 40 CFR 1506.10, with limited exceptions, an Agency must wait a minimum of 30 days after publication of the EPA's notice of an FEIS before issuing a record of decision regarding actions covered by that FEIS. Accordingly, this notice advises the public that the waiting period has elapsed, and APHIS has issued a record of decision to implement the preferred alternative described in the FEIS titled “Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach.”
APHIS' record of decision has been prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
On May 9, 2013, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Puerto Rico Trade & Export Company, grantee of FTZ 61, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 61 on behalf of Parapiezas Corporation. Pursuant to an application amendment in October 2013, the subzone would consist of one site in Cataño, Puerto Rico.
The amended application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notices in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the amended application to establish Subzone 61P is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and
On June 9, 2015, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Illinois International Port District, grantee of FTZ 22, on behalf of Michelin North America, Inc., requesting an expansion of Subzone 22N in Wilmington, Illinois subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 22 and also requesting the removal of existing Site 1 of the subzone following a transition period.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
On June 11, 2015, the Acting Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Puerto Rico Trade & Export Company, grantee of FTZ 61, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 61 on behalf of Autogermana, Inc., in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The applicant also requested removal of Site 22 of FTZ 61 following a transition period to allow merchandise to be transferred to the new subzone.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 61Q and to remove Site 22 of FTZ 61 after a 45-day transition period (
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“CTL plate”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period of review (“POR”) November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014. This review covers six PRC companies.
Patrick O'Connor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0989.
The product covered by the order is certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the PRC.
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). For a full discussion of the decisions taken in these preliminary results,
The following companies failed to submit a separate rate application or separate rate certification: Hebei Iron; Hunan Valin; Jiangyin Plastic; Jiangyin Steel; and Xiamen Paper. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that these companies have not demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status and are part of the PRC-wide entity.
Wuyang Iron submitted a timely-filed certification that it had no exports, sales, or entries of subject merchandise during the POR,
Consistent with an announced refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases, the Department is not rescinding this administrative review for Wuyang Iron, but intends to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.
The Department preliminarily determines that Hebei Iron; Hunan Valin; Jiangyin Plastic; Jiangyin Steel; and Xiamen Paper are not eligible for separate rates status. Moreover, the Department preliminarily determines that Wuyang Iron did not have reviewable transactions during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments, filed electronically using ACCESS, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days after the due date for case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the argument not to exceed five pages, and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 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, filed electronically using ACCESS. Electronically filed case briefs/written comments and hearing requests must be received successfully in their entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Additionally, pursuant to the Department's practice in NME cases, if we continue to determine that Wuyang Iron had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries of subject merchandise from Wuyang Iron will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters which are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but which have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, including Hebei Iron; Hunan Valin; Jiangyin Plastic; Jiangyin Steel; and Xiamen Paper, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 128.59 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
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
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 February 13, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) received a request for revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”)
Patrick O'Connor or 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) 482-0989 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.
On January 4, 2005, the Department published the
On April 2, 2015, we published the
The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.
The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests,
The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) Seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate;
Also excluded from the scope are certain shoe cabinets 31.5-33.5 inches wide by 15.5-17.5 inches deep by 34.5-36.5 inches high. They are designed strictly to store shoes, which are intended to be aligned in rows perpendicular to the wall along which the cabinet is positioned. Shoe cabinets do not have drawers, rods, or other indicia for the storage of clothing other than shoes. The cabinets are not designed, manufactured, or offered for sale in coordinated groups or sets and are made substantially of wood, have two to four shelves inside them, and are covered by doors. The doors often have blinds that are designed to allow air circulation and release of bad odors. The doors themselves may be made of wood or glass. The depth of the shelves does not exceed 14 inches. Each shoe cabinet has doors, adjustable shelving, and ventilation holes.
Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheadings 9403.50.9042 and 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “wooden . . . beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other . . . wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9042 or 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood.” Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, 9403.20.0018, or 9403.90.8041. Further, framed glass mirrors may be entered under subheading 7009.92.1000 or 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors . . . framed.” The order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
The scope of the order currently excludes certain jewelry armoires with at least one side door but does not exclude jewelry armoires with at least one front door. Pier One proposes adding the phrase “or at least one front door” to the existing exclusion for jewelry armoires. Thus, excluded jewelry armoires would be: “{A}ny armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24 inches in width, 18 inches in depth, and 49 inches in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or felt-like material, at least one side door or one front door (whether or not the door is lined with felt or felt-like material), with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset mirror.”
Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.222(g), the Department may revoke an AD order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act (
On February 13, 2015, Pier One requested that the Department expedite the changed circumstances review.
As noted in the
Accordingly, we are notifying the public of our intent to revoke the
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Written comments may be submitted no later than 14 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such comments, may be filed no later than seven days after the due date for comments. All submissions must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's AD and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The Department will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review, which will include its analysis of any written comments, no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated.
If, in the final results of this review, the Department continues to determine
The current requirement for cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties on all entries of subject merchandise will continue unless until they are modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review.
These preliminary results of review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221 and 19 CFR 351.222.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires any United States (U.S.) citizen issued a Special Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishing Permit to complete logbooks and submit them to NMFS (50 CFR 665). The Special Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishing Permit is authorized under the Fishery Ecosystem Plans for American Samoa Archipelago, Hawaiian Archipelago, Mariana Archipelago, and Pacific Remote Island Areas. The information in the logbooks is used to obtain fish catch/fishing effort data on coral reef fishes and invertebrates harvested in designated low-use marine protected areas and on those listed in the regulations as potentially-harvested coral reef taxa in waters of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in the western Pacific region. These data are needed to determine the condition of the stocks, whether the current management measures are having the intended effects, and to evaluate the benefits and costs of changes in management measures. The logbook information includes interactions with protected species, including sea turtles, monk seals, and other marine mammals, which are used to monitor and respond to incidental takes of endangered and threatened marine species.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of intent to evaluate: Correction.
The NOAA Office for Coastal Management published a notice in the
The second public meeting for the Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program will be held Wednesday, September 2, and begin at 4:00 p.m. local time at the Environmental Agencies Building, PR-8838 Km. 6.3, El Cinco, Rio Piedras, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Written comments from interested parties are encouraged and will be accepted until September 15, 2015. Please direct written comments to Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Room 11212, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or
Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Room 11212, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 13, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patsy A. Bearden, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 586-7008, or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
The Alaska Community Quota Entity (CQE) Program allocates to eligible communities a portion of the quotas for groundfish, halibut, crab, and prohibited species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). Currently, there are 98 CQE eligible communities (45 Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) and quota share (QS) halibut and sablefish, 32 charter halibut, and 21 License Limitation Program (LLP) communities), although only a few communities are currently participating. The allocations provide communities the means for starting or supporting commercial fisheries business activities that will result in an ongoing, regionally based, fisheries-related economy. A non-profit corporate entity that meets specific criteria to receive transferred halibut or sablefish QS on behalf of an eligible community may lease the resulting IFQ to persons who are residents of the eligible community.
Forms and applications are “fillable” on the computer screen at the NMFS Alaska Region Home Page at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 13, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of Family Policy/Children and Youth, Program Analyst for the Family Advocacy Program, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 03G15, Alexandria, VA 22350-2300, ATTN: Mary Campise, or call 571-372-5346.
DoD Instruction 6400.01 Family Advocacy Program (FAP) establishes policy and assigns responsibility for addressing child abuse and neglect and domestic abuse through family advocacy programs and services. Each military service delivers a family advocacy program to their respective military members and their families. Military or family members may use these services, and voluntary personal information must be gathered to determine benefit eligibility and individual needs.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Notice to alter a system of records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records notice DWHS E03, entitled “Security Review Index File.” This system is used to manage the prepublication and security review processes for documents or materials before they are officially cleared for release outside of the DoD through a tracking application that provides the current status of each case and statistical data.
Comments will be accepted on or before September 10, 2015. This proposed action will be effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0461.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on July 30, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Security Review Index File (March 30, 2012, 77 FR 19266).
Delete entry and replace with “Security Review Tracking Application (SRTA).”
Delete entry and replace with “Department of Defense, Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.”
Delete entry and replace with “DoD personnel (military and civilian) submitting requests for prepublication review of official information considered for public release and members of the public (former DoD personnel) requesting a review of material prior to submission for publication.”
Delete entry and replace with “Name, personal phone number(s) (home/cell), personal email address, home mailing address, date of request, case number, and title/subject of the material submitted for review.”
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 113, Secretary of Defense; 22 CFR part 125.4, Exemptions of General Applicability,(b)(13); DoD Directive 5230.09, Clearance of DoD Information for Public Release; and DoD Instruction 5230.29, Security and Policy Review of DoD Information for Public Release.”
Delete entry and replace with “To manage the prepublication and security review processes for documents or materials before they are officially cleared for release outside of the DoD through a tracking application that provides the current status of each case and statistical data.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally
Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component 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 other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component 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 Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found online at:
Delete entry and replace with “Name, case number, title/subject of material submitted, and date of request.”
Delete entry and replace with “Paper records are accessed only by officials with a need to know and appropriate security clearance in accordance with assigned duties. Electronic records require a Common Access Card (CAC) to access and are further protected by using a Personal Identification Number (PIN) with access limited to those individuals who have a need to know. Records are stored in a secure facility with full time guards in rooms requiring specific authority to access.”
Delete entry and replace with “Records are destroyed after 15 years.”
Delete entry and replace with “Chief, Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Department of Defense, Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Written requests should include the case number (if available), date of request, title/subject of document submitted, or author's name.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff, Freedom of Information Requester Service Center, Office of Freedom of Information, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Signed, written requests should include the name and number of this system of records notice, the case number (if available), date of request, title/subject of submitted document, or author's name.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individual.”
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Rehabilitation Training—Technical Assistance Center for Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.263B.
Applications Available: August 11, 2015.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 10, 2015.
This priority is:
In deciding whether to continue funding the Technical Assistance and Training Center for Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance (PEQA) for the fourth and fifth years, the Department, as part of the review of the application narrative and annual performance reports, will consider the degree to which the program demonstrates substantial progress toward—
(a) Providing educational opportunities from recognized experts in program evaluation and quality assurance;
(b) Developing interagency collaboration networks and work teams committed to the improvement of quality assurance systems and tools; and
(c) Delivering technical, professional, and continuing educational support to State VR program evaluators.
1.
2.
1.
To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address:
To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.263B.
To obtain a copy from the program office, contact the person listed under
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2. a.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. Because of the limited time available to review applications and make a recommendation for funding, we strongly encourage applicants to limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
In addition to the page-limit guidance on the application narrative section, we recommend that you adhere to the following page limits, using the standards listed above: (1) The abstract should be no more than one page, (2)
Please note that any funded applicant's application abstract will be made available to the public.
b.
Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the Rehabilitation Training: Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center—Youth with Disabilities competition, an application may include business information that the applicant considers proprietary. The Department's regulations define “business information” in 34 CFR 5.11.
Because we plan to make the abstract of the successful application available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the Rehabilitation Training: Technical Assistance Center for Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance, CFDA number 84.263B, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Rehabilitation Training: Technical Assistance Center for Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Don Bunuan, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5046, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800. FAX: (202) 245-7592.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.263B), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
The purpose of this priority is to fund a program designed to (a) provide educational opportunities from recognized experts in program evaluation and quality assurance; (b) develop interagency collaboration networks and work teams committed to the improvement of quality assurance systems and tools; and (c) deliver technical, professional, and continuing educational support to State VR program evaluators.
The Cooperative Agreement will specify the short-term and long-term measures that will be used to assess the grantee's performance against the goals and objectives of the project and the outcomes listed in the preceding paragraph.
In its annual and final performance reports to the Department, the grant recipient will be expected to report the data outlined in the Cooperative Agreement that is needed to assess its performance.
The Cooperative Agreement and annual report will be reviewed by RSA and the grant recipient between the third and fourth quarter of each project period. Adjustments will be made to the project accordingly in order to ensure demonstrated progress towards meeting the goals and outcomes of the project.
5.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2., and in accordance with Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee has been renewed for a two-year period.
The Committee will provide advice to the Office of Science (DOE), on long-range plans, priorities, and strategies for advancing plasma science, fusion science and fusion technology—the knowledge base needed for an economically and environmentally attractive fusion energy source. The Secretary of Energy has determined that the renewal of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee is essential to the conduct of the Department's business and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), the General Services Administration Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, and other directives and instruction issued in the implementation of those Acts.
Edmund J. Synakowski at (301) 903-4941.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, September 9, 2015 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Red Lion Pasco, 2525 North 20th Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301.
Kristen Skopeck, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, 825 Jadwin Avenue, P.O. Box 550, A7-75, Richland, WA 99352; Phone: (509) 376-5803; or Email:
Tentative Agenda:
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for OMB review and comment.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance a proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection will gather opinions of experts in industry and other organizations regarding the impact on the development and diffusion of energy-efficient HVAC, water heating, and appliance technologies of DOE/EERE Building Technologies Office (BTO) investments. Expert opinions are necessary to characterize counterfactual patterns of technology development and diffusion in the absence of DOE investments, and so (by comparing these counterfactuals with actual observations) estimate the difference DOE investments have made. This information is needed by DOE for budget justification and strategic planning. Respondents will include representatives of companies in the HVAC, water heating, and appliance supply chain (including companies that received DOE R&D funding and companies that received no direct funding from DOE), researchers at DOE-funded labs (
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before September 10, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.
Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
And to Mark Friedrichs, by email to:
Mark Friedrichs,
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. New; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Surveys/Interviews to Gather Expert Opinion on the Impact of DOE/EERE Building Technologies Office Investments in HVAC, Water-Heating, and Appliance Technologies; (3) Type of Request: New collection; (4) Purpose: The information collection will characterize counterfactual patterns of technology development and diffusion in the absence of DOE investments, so that by comparing these counterfactuals with actual observations the impacts of DOE investments can be estimated; this information is needed by DOE for budget justification and strategic planning. Respondents will include representatives of companies in the HVAC, water heating, and appliance supply chain (including companies that received DOE R&D funding and companies that received no direct funding from DOE), researchers at DOE-funded labs (
DOE Org Act (42 U.S.C. 7101,
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM):
August 13, 2015, 9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (EST)
August 13, 2015, 11:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. (EST)
The above-referenced meetings will be held at: PJM Conference and Training Center, PJM Interconnection, 2750 Monroe Boulevard, Audubon, PA 19403.
The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket Nos. ER15-33,
Docket No. ER15-994,
Docket No. ER14-2867,
Docket Nos. ER14-972 and ER14-1485,
Docket No. ER14-1485,
Docket Nos. ER13-1957,
Docket Nos. ER13-1944,
Docket No. ER15-1344,
Docket No. ER15-1387,
Docket No. EL15-18,
Docket No. EL15-41,
Docket No. ER13-1927,
Docket No. EL15-79,
For more information, contact the following:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO):
MISO Planning Advisory Committee, August 19, 2015, 9 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST).
The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters, 720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket Nos. ER13-1944, et al.,
Docket No. ER14-1174,
Docket No. ER14-1736,
Docket No. ER14-2445,
Docket No. ER13-1864,
Docket No. EL14-21,
Docket No. EL14-30,
Docket No. EL11-34,
Docket No. ER11-1844,
Docket No. EL13-88,
Docket Nos. ER13-1923, et al.,
Docket Nos. ER13-1937, et al.,
For more information, contact Chris Miller, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5936 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Triad Expansion Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (TGP) in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before September 4, 2015.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on July 6, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP15-520-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
TGP 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 (CP15-520-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
TGP proposes to construct and operate pipeline facilities, to modify existing aboveground facilities, and add new tie-in facilities in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. The Triad Expansion Project would provide about 180,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas. According to TGP, its project would meet the needs of a new natural gas-fired power plant to be constructed in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.
The Triad Expansion Project would consist of the following facilities:
• Approximately 7.0 miles of new 36-inch-diameter looping
• a new internal pipeline inspection (“pig”)
• a new pig receiver, a new odorant facility, and ancillary piping at the existing Compressor Station 321 in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 152 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline, 71 acres of which are associated with existing permanent TGP rights-of-way. Following construction, TGP would maintain about 43 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities, 33 acres of which are associated with existing permanent TGP rights-of-way; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. The majority of the proposed pipeline route parallels TGP's existing 300 Line rights-of-way. In addition, the compressor station modifications would be constructed within TGP's existing property boundaries.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife, including migratory birds;
• 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 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.
Copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
On May 1, 2015, the Liquid Sun Hydro, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Bear Creek Hydroelectric Project (Bear Creek Project or project) to be located on Bear Creek, near Concrete, Skagit County, Washington. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of two developments: The Upper Bear Creek and the Lower Bear Creek, using some of the existing facilities from Puget Sound Power and Light Co.'s Bear Creek Project (P-3286) which was surrendered in 1983.
The Upper Bear Creek development would consist of the following existing facilities: (1) A reservoir with a surface area of one acre and storage capacity of two acre-feet; (2) a 100-foot-long, 6-foot-high diversion with an integrated 30-foot-long, 6-foot-high ungated overflow spillway, (3) a powerhouse containing a 250-kilowatt (kW) Francis turbine; (4) an 8-foot-wide tailrace; and (5) a total of 1,850 feet of access roads. All of these facilities will be renovated or repaired. The Upper Bear Creek development would also consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 400-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter above-ground steel penstock routed through the existing penstock alignment; (2) a 250-kW generator; (3) a 350-foot-long, 12.5-kilovolt (kV) three-phase transmission line interconnecting with the existing Bear Creek Project transmission line; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Upper Bear Creek development would be 1.2 gigawatt-hours (GWh).
The Lower Bear Creek development would consist of the following existing facilities: (1) A reservoir with a surface area of 1.7 acre; (2) a 235-foot-long, 24-foot-high diversion structure with an integrated 82-foot-long, 24-foot-high ungated overflow spillway; (3) a powerhouse containing three 600-kW Pelton turbines; (4) two tailraces; and (5) a total of 4,350 feet of access roads. All of these facilities will be renovated or repaired. The Lower Bear Creek development would also consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 2,800-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter above-ground steel penstock routed through the existing penstock alignment; (2) a 4,000-kW Francis replacing the existing three Pelton turbines; (3) a 3.5-mile-long, 12.5-kV three-phase transmission line interconnecting with the Puget Sound Energy transmission lines at Lake Tyree; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Lower Bear Creek development would be 15 GWh.
Both developments would be operated as a run-of-river facilities and have no usable storage. The estimated total annual generation of the project would be 16.2 GWh.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report Filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is issuing this supplemental notice (Notice) to provide landowners potentially affected by additional pipeline route alternatives an opportunity to comment on impacts associated with these newly identified routes. The FERC is the lead federal agency responsible for conducting the environmental review of the ACP Project. The Commission's staff will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that discusses the environmental impacts of the ACP Project. This EIS will be used in part by the Commission to determine whether the ACP Project is in the public convenience and necessity.
You have been identified as a landowner that may be affected by new alternatives being considered. Information in this Notice is provided to familiarize you with these new alternatives, the ACP Project as a whole, and the Commission's environmental review process, and instruct you on how to submit comments about the ACP Project and the alternatives under consideration. This Notice is also being sent to federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers in the vicinity of these alternatives. We encourage elected officials and government representatives to notify their constituents about the ACP Project and inform them on how they can comment on their areas of concern. Please note that comments on this Notice should be filed with the Commission by September 4, 2015.
If your property would be affected by one of the alternatives under consideration, you should have already been contacted by an Atlantic representative. An Atlantic representative may have also contacted you or may contact you in the near future about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities or request permission to perform environmental surveys on your property. Some landowners may not be contacted if the alternative across their property is found to be either not feasible or not environmentally preferable to other alternatives being considered. If the Commission approves the ACP Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
To help potentially affected landowners better understand the Commission and its environmental review process, the “For Citizens” section of the FERC Web site (
The ACP Project would involve the construction and operation of 556 miles of variable diameter natural gas pipeline in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. The pipeline facilities associated with the ACP Project would be comprised of four main components as follows:
• Approximately 292.8 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, and Pocahontas Counties, West Virginia; Highland, Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Cumberland, Prince Edward, Nottoway, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, and Greensville Counties, Virginia; and Northampton County, North Carolina;
• approximately 181.5 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, North Carolina;
• approximately 77.6 miles of 20-inch-diameter lateral pipeline in Northampton County, North Carolina; Greensville and Southampton, Counties, Virginia; and the Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake, Virginia;
• approximately 3.1 miles of 16-inch-diameter natural gas lateral pipeline in Brunswick County, Virginia; and
• approximately 1.0 mile of 16-inch-diameter natural gas lateral pipeline in Greenville County, Virginia.
In addition to the planned pipelines, Atlantic plans to construct and operate three new compressor stations totaling 117,405 horsepower of compression. These compressor stations would be located in Lewis County, West Virginia; Buckingham County, Virginia; and Northampton County, North Carolina. Atlantic would also install metering stations, valves, pig launcher/receiver sites,
Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion) is planning to construct the
In addition to the planned pipelines, Dominion plans to modify four existing compressor stations in Westmoreland and Green Counties, Pennsylvania and Marshall and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia. Dominion would install new gas-fired turbines that would provide for a combined increase of 77,230 horsepower of compression. Dominion would also install new valves, pig launcher/receiver sites, and associated appurtenances at these existing compressor station locations.
The SHP and ACP Projects would be capable of delivering 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to eight planned distribution points in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. If approved, construction of the projects is proposed to begin in September 2016.
On November 13, 2014 the Commission's environmental staff approved Atlantic's and Dominion's request to use the Commission Pre-filing Process for the SHP and ACP Project. The purpose of the Pre-filing Process is to encourage the early involvement of interested stakeholders to identify and resolve project-related issues before an application is filed with the Commission. On February 27, 2015 the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Supply Header Project and Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings.
During the course of the Pre-filing Process, numerous concerns have been expressed about the potential environmental impacts of the project and the need to collocate the planned facilities with existing rights-of-way. Based on the merits of these comments, and to ensure that potential environmental impacts are minimized to the extent practical and that public concerns are fully addressed during the Pre-filing Process, additional alternatives have been identified and are being considered.
The following new alternatives are now being analyzed. Illustrations of these alternatives are provided in Appendix 1.
The Brunswick Route Alternative would deviate from Atlantic's planned route near AP-1 milepost (MP) 259 and extend south and for approximately 20.9 miles before rejoining the planned route near AP-1 MP 277. The majority of the Brunswick Route Alternative would follow a recently constructed electric transmission line. The Brunswick Route Alternative would reduce the length of the planned AP-3 lateral pipeline.
The Boykins Route Alternative would deviate from Atlantic's planned route near AP-3 MP 14.5 and extend for approximately 13 miles in a northeast direction before rejoining the planned AP-3 route at approximate AP-3 MP 28. The majority of the Boykins Route Alternative would follow an existing 115 kilovolt electric transmission line.
The Franklin Route Alternative would deviate from Atlantic's planned route near AP-3 MP 41 and extend for approximately 12.5 miles in a easterly direction before rejoining the planned AP-3 route at approximate AP-3 MP 53. The majority of the Franklin Route Alternative would follow an existing 115 kilovolt electric transmission line.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the planned ACP Project and the three alternatives identified above. We will consider all filed comments that are suggested during the preparation of the EIS.
Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in a draft EIS that will be placed in the public record, published, and distributed to the public for comments. We will also hold public comment meetings in the project area and will address comments on the draft EIS in a final EIS. The final EIS will also be placed in the public record, published, and distributed to the public. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section on the following page.
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 Offices, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the projects' potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the alternatives presented above and about the projects in general. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are considered in a timely manner and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before September 4, 2015.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the appropriate project docket number (PF15-6-000 for the ACP Project) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
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, as well as anyone who submits comments on the projects. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned projects.
Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
Once Atlantic files an application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives formal applications for the projects.
Additional information about the ACP Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a. Type of Proceeding: Amendment of License.
b. Project No.: 12642-007.
c.
d. Licensee: Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company.
e.
f.
g.
h. Licensee Contact: Mr. Kevin Edwards, P.O. Box 143, Mayodan, NC 27027, Telephone: (336) 589-6138, Email:
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests
k. Description of Request: The licensee proposes to revise the design of the project facilities as follows: (1) Change the design and placement of the intake structure to be located approximately 900 feet north of the existing intake tower on the north bank of the reservoir, rather than utilizing the existing intake tower for the hydroelectric project; (2) change the size and location of the penstock from the existing discharge conduit to an 800-foot-long tunnel bored through the rock north abutment of the dam. The size of the penstock will change from the 11 feet in diameter to 10 feet in diameter for the sections of penstock not bored through the rock, and reduce to 6 to 8 feet in diameter for the steel-lined rock tunnel; (3) change the powerhouse location from the south bank of the existing discharge channel to the north bank of the discharge channel; (4) reduce the number of generating units from two, to a single turbine and generator, having a hydraulic capacity of 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) and an installed capacity of 2,000 kilowatts (kW); (5) add a new impact basin structure; (6) a 32-foot-long, 90-foot-wide tailrace; and (7) change the transmission length from 150 feet to 500 feet. The proposed change to the generating units would reduce the hydraulic capacity from 800 cfs to 500 cfs and the installed capacity from 4,000 kW to 2,000 kW.
l. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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, .212 and .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: 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 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 and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license amendment. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener 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. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application 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 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
p. A license applicant must file, no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project (Oregon LNG Project) proposed by LNG Development Company, LLC and Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC (collectively referred to as Oregon LNG) and the Washington Expansion Project proposed by Northwest Pipeline LLC (Northwest) in the above-referenced dockets. Oregon LNG requests authorization under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to site, construct, and operate an import/export liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Warrenton, Oregon. Oregon LNG also requests a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) pursuant to Section 7(c) of the NGA to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline from the proposed LNG terminal to an interconnect with the interstate transmission system of Northwest near Woodland, Washington. Northwest requests a Certificate pursuant to Section 7(c) of the NGA to expand the capacity of its existing natural gas transmission facilities between Woodland and Sumas, Washington. The primary purpose of the projects is to export an equivalent of about 456 billion cubic feet per year of natural gas to foreign markets.
The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Oregon LNG and Washington Expansion Projects in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed projects would result in some adverse environmental impacts; however, most of these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Oregon LNG's and Northwest's proposed mitigation and the additional measures recommended in the draft EIS.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. Although the cooperating agencies provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective records of decision or determinations for the projects.
The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following facilities associated with the Oregon LNG Project:
• One marine terminal with a ship berth for one LNG marine carrier;
• two full-containment storage tanks, each designed to store 160,000 cubic meters of LNG;
• natural gas pretreatment facilities;
• two liquefaction process trains, regasification facilities, and other related terminal support structures and systems;
• an 86.8-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter bidirectional pipeline; and
• one 40-megawatt (MW), 48,000-horsepower (hp) electrically driven gas compressor station.
For the Washington Expansion Project, the draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of:
• 140.6 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop
• ancillary pipeline facilities; and
• 96,000 hp of additional compression at five existing compressor stations.
Northwest's project would also include abandonment and removal of existing pipeline and aboveground facilities.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the draft EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners; other interested individuals and nongovernmental organizations; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to these proceedings. Paper copy versions of this EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a compact disk version. In addition, the draft EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before October 6, 2015.
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket numbers (CP09-6-001, CP09-7-001, and CP13-507-000) with your submission. 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 eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend one of the public comment meetings its staff will conduct during the draft EIS comment period and in the project area to receive comments on the draft EIS. We encourage interested groups and individuals to attend and present oral comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the meetings will be available for review in eLibrary under the project docket numbers. A notice of meeting times and locations will be sent to the environmental mailing list and posted on the FERC eLibrary.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Energy Power Investment Company, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 25, 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
On July 27, 2015, the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), licensee for the Carmen-Smith Hydroelectric Project (P-2242) located on the McKenzie River in Lane and Line Counties, Oregon, requested that the Commission: (1) Delay acting on its license application until at least January 31, 2016, while it completes additional economic analysis of implementing the 2008 settlement agreement on the project; (2) hold a technical conference to discuss EWEB's economic analysis; and (3) designate a non-decisional separated staff to advise EWEB about alternatives to the settlement agreement as it relates to project economics. This request can be viewed at
The Commission is soliciting comments on this request. Any comments should be filed within 15 days from the date of this notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
For further information, contact David Turner at (202) 502-6091.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has entered into a Consent Agreement with Comcast Cable Communications, L.L.C. (Comcast or Respondent) to resolve violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and their implementing regulations.
The Administrator is hereby providing public notice of this Consent Agreement and proposed Final Order (CAFO), and providing an opportunity for interested persons to comment on the CWA and EPCRA portions of the CAFO, pursuant to CWA Section 311(b)(6)(C), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(C). Upon closure of the public comment period, the CAFO and any public comments will be forwarded to the Agency's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB).
Comments are due on or before September 10, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2015-0540, by one of the following methods:
•
• Email:
• Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2015-0540.
• Mail: Enforcement and Compliance Docket Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2015-0540.
• Hand Delivery: Enforcement and Compliance Docket Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1927. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Beth Cavalier, Special Litigation and Projects Division (2248-A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-3271; fax: (202) 564-0010; email:
This proposed settlement agreement is the result of voluntary disclosures of CWA and EPCRA violations by Comcast to the EPA. Comcast is among the largest providers of cable services in the United States, offering a variety of entertainment, information, and communications solutions to residential and commercial customers, and is located at 1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19103, and incorporated in Delaware. The Comcast facilities that underwent audits included engineering facilities, customer service centers, field technician fulfillment offices, call centers, warehouses and administrative offices.
On August 11, 2014, the EPA and Respondent entered into a corporate audit agreement pursuant to the Agency's policy on
The EPA determined that Respondent satisfactorily completed its audit and has met all conditions set forth in the Audit Policy. Comcast has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $28,782 for the violations identified in Attachments A and B. This figure is the calculated economic benefit of noncompliance based on information provided by Respondent and use of the Economic Benefit (BEN) computer model. Of this amount $22,393 is attributable to CWA violations, and $6,389 is attributable to EPCRA violations.
The EPA and Respondent negotiated the Consent Agreement in accordance with the Consolidated Rules of Practice, 40 CFR part 22, specifically 40 CFR 22.13(b) and 22.18(b) (
Respondent disclosed that it failed to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan in violation of CWA Section 311(j), 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), and the implementing regulations found at 40 CFR part 112, at 10 facilities located in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee, identified in Attachment B.
Under CWA Section 311(b)(6)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(A), any owner, operator, or person in charge of a vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility from which oil is discharged in violation of CWA Section 311(b)(3), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3), or who fails or refuses to comply with any regulations that have been issued under CWA Section 311(j), 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), may be assessed an administrative civil penalty of up to $177,500 by the EPA. Class II proceedings under CWA Section 311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6), are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22. As authorized by CWA Section 311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6), the EPA has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.
Pursuant to CWA Section 311(b)(6)(C), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(C), the EPA will not issue an order in this proceeding prior to the close of the public comment period.
Respondent disclosed that it violated EPCRA Section 302(c), 42 U.S.C. 11002(c), and the implementing regulations found at 40 CFR part 355, at six facilities listed in Attachment A when it failed to notify the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and/or the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) that these facilities are subject to the requirements of Section 302(c) of EPCRA. These facilities are located in Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
Respondent disclosed that it violated EPCRA Section 311(a), 42 U.S.C. 11021(a), and the implementing regulations found at 40 CFR part 370, at 22 facilities listed in Attachment A when it failed to submit a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for hazardous chemicals and/or extremely hazardous substances or, in the alternative, a list of such chemicals, to the LEPCs, SERCs, and the fire departments with jurisdiction over these facilities. These facilities are located in Alabama, California, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
Respondent disclosed that it violated EPCRA Section 312(a), 42 U.S.C. 11022(a), and the implementing regulations found at 40 CFR part 370, at 26 facilities listed in Attachment A when it failed to prepare and submit emergency and chemical inventory forms to the LEPCs, SERCs, and the fire departments with jurisdiction over these facilities. These facilities are located in Alabama, California, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
Under EPCRA Section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, the Administrator may issue an administrative order assessing a civil penalty against any person who has violated applicable emergency planning or right-to-know requirements, or any other requirement of EPCRA. Proceedings under EPCRA Section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22. The EPA, as authorized by EPCRA Section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.
Environmental protection.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for information.
As part of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) review of Utah's 2012-2014 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list, we deferred action on Utah's decision not to list the Great Salt Lake as impaired. We are seeking data from the Great Salt Lake for consideration. While we are seeking all available mercury concentration data (any medium) from the Great Salt Lake we are particularly interested in obtaining mercury concentration data in avian: tissue (particularly liver tissue), blood, diet, and eggs. Ideally, we would like raw data and any available quality assurance metadata and quality criteria. Reports and publications are also desirable.
Data must be received on or before September 10, 2015.
Submit your data, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OW-2015-0415, by one of the following methods:
•
• Email:
• Fax: (303) 312-7206 (please alert the individual listed in the
• Mail: William Bunch, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-EP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
• Hand Delivery: William Bunch, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-EP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
William Bunch, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-EP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6412,
1.
2.
• Identify the notice by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions and organize your data;
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or QA/QC that you used;
• Make sure to submit your data by the deadline identified
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “CEQ-EPA Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators Application” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 13, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-AO-2015-0553, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Carly Carroll, AO Office of Environmental Education, MC-1704-A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2769; fax number: 202-564-2754; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 13, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
Collection of the information on FCC Forms 470 and 471 is necessary so that the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) have sufficient information to determine if entities are eligible for funding pursuant to the schools and libraries support mechanism (the E-rate program), to determine if entities are complying with the Commission's rules, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. In addition, the information is necessary for the Commission to evaluate the extent to which the E-rate program is meeting the statutory objectives specified in section 254(h) of the 1996 Act, and the Commission's own performance goals established in the
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 4, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
D. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1.
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 25, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB number.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 13, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
1.
Congress substantially amended the FCRA upon the passage of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act).
Since 2011, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been responsible for issuing most FCRA regulations. The Federal Reserve retained rule-writing authority for certain provisions of the FCRA applicable to motor vehicle dealers and provisions of the FCRA that require identity theft prevention programs, regulate the disposal of consumer information, and require card issuers to validate consumers' notifications of changes of address.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 4, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Request for Scientific Information Submissions.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of Omega 3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease—Update, which is currently being conducted by the AHRQ's Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Programs. Access to published and unpublished pertinent scientific information will improve the quality of this review. AHRQ is conducting this systematic review pursuant to Section 902(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299a(a).
Submission Deadline on or before September 10, 2015.
Online submissions:
Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503-220-8262 ext. 58653 or Email:
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Programs to complete a review of the evidence for Omega 3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease—Update.
The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (
This notice is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on Omega 3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease—Update helpful:
A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please indicate whether results are available on ClinicalTrials.gov along with the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number.
For completed studies that do not have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, please provide a summary, including the following elements: study number, study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, baseline characteristics, number of patients screened/eligible/enrolled/lost to follow-up/withdrawn/analyzed, effectiveness/efficacy, and safety results.
A list of ongoing studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please provide the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the trial is not registered, the protocol for the study including a study number, the study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary and secondary outcomes.
Description of whether the above studies constitute all Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.
Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EPC Program. The contents of all submissions will be made available to the public upon request. Materials submitted must be publicly available or can be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.
The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at:
The systematic review will answer the following questions. This information is provided as background. AHRQ is not requesting that the public provide answers to these questions. The entire research protocol, is available online at:
1. What is the efficacy or association of n-3 Fatty Acids (FA) (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA], docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]EPA+DHA, docosapentaenoic acid [DPA], stearidonic acid [SDA], alpha-linolenic acid [ALA], or total n-3 Fatty Acids) exposures in reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes (incident CVD events including all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, non-fatal CVD events, new diagnosis of CVD, peripheral vascular disease, congestive heart failure, major arrhythmias, and hypertension diagnosis) and specific CVD risk factors (blood pressure, key plasma lipids)?
○ What is the efficacy or association of n-3 FA in preventing CVD outcomes in people
Without known CVD (primary prevention)
At high risk for CVD (primary prevention)
With known CVD (secondary prevention)?
○ What is the relative efficacy of different n-3 FAs on CVD outcomes and risk factors?
○ Can the CVD outcomes be ordered by strength of intervention effect of n-3 FAs?
2. n-3 FA variables and modifiers:
○ How does the efficacy or association of n-3 FA in preventing CVD outcomes and with CVD risk factors differ in subpopulations, including men, premenopausal women, postmenopausal women, and different age or race/ethnicity groups?
○ What are the effects of potential confounders or interacting factors—such as plasma lipids, body mass index, blood pressure, diabetes, kidney disease, other nutrients or supplements, and drugs (
○ What is the efficacy or association of different ratios of n-3 FA components in dietary supplements or biomarkers, on CVD outcomes and risk factors?
○ How does the efficacy or association of n-3 FA on CVD outcomes and risk factors differ by ratios of different n-3 FAs—DHA, EPA, and ALA, or other n-3 FAs?
○ How does the efficacy or association of n-3 FA on CVD outcomes and risk factors differ by source (
○ How does the ratio of n-6 FA to n-3 FA intakes or biomarker concentrations affect the efficacy or association of n-3 FA on CVD outcomes and risk factors?
○ Is there a threshold or dose-response relationship between n-3 FA exposures and CVD outcomes and risk factors? Does the study type affect these relationships?
○ How does the duration of intervention or exposure influence the effect of n-3 FA on CVD outcomes and risk factors?
○ What is the effect of baseline n-3 FA status (intake or biomarkers) on the efficacy of n-3 FA intake or supplementation on CVD outcomes and risk factors?
3. Adverse events:
○ What adverse effects are related to n-3 FA intake or biomarker concentrations (in studies of CVD outcomes and risk factors)?
○ What adverse events are reported specifically among people with CVD or
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Request for Scientific Information Submissions.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of Omega 3 Fatty Acids and Maternal and Child Health, which is currently being conducted by the AHRQ's Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Programs. Access to published and unpublished pertinent scientific information will improve the quality of this review. AHRQ is conducting this systematic review pursuant to Section 902(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299a(a).
Submission Deadline on or before September 10, 2015.
Online submissions:
Email submissions:
Print submissions:
Mailing Address:
Portland VA Research Foundation, Scientific Resource Center, ATTN: Scientific Information Packet Coordinator, P.O. Box 69539, Portland, OR 97239.
Shipping Address (FedEx, UPS, etc.): Portland VA Research Foundation, Scientific Resource Center, ATTN: Scientific Information Packet Coordinator, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Mail Code: R&D 71, Portland, OR 97239.
Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503-220-8262 ext. 58653 or Email:
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Programs to complete a review of the evidence for Omega 3 Fatty Acids and Maternal and Child Health.
The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for
The entire research protocol, including the key questions, is also available online at:
This notice is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on Omega 3 Fatty Acids and Maternal and Child Health helpful:
A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please indicate whether results are available on ClinicalTrials.gov along with the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number.
For completed studies that do not have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, please provide a summary, including the following elements: Study number, study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, baseline characteristics, number of patients screened/eligible/enrolled/lost to follow-up/withdrawn/analyzed, effectiveness/efficacy, and safety results.
A list of ongoing studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please provide the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the trial is not registered, the protocol for the study including a study number, the study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary and secondary outcomes.
Description of whether the above studies constitute all Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.
Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EPC Program. The contents of all submissions will be made available to the public upon request. Materials submitted must be publicly available or can be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.
The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at:
The systematic review will answer the following questions. This information is provided as background. AHRQ is not requesting that the public provide answers to these questions. The entire research protocol, is available online at:
○ What is the efficacy of maternal interventions involving—or association of maternal exposures to—n-3 Fatty Acids (FA) (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA], docosahexaenoic acid [DHA], EPA+DHA [long-chain n-3 FA], docosapentaenoic acid [DPA], alpha-linolenic acid [ALA], stearidonic acid [SDA] or total n-3 FA) on the following:
Duration of gestation in women with or without a history of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks gestation)
Incidence of preeclampsia/eclampsia/gestational hypertension in women with or without a history of preeclampsia/eclampsia/gestational hypertension
Incidence of birth of small-for-gestational age human infants
Incidence of ante- and/or postnatal depression in women with or without a history of major depression or postpartum depression
○ What are the associations of maternal biomarkers of n-3 intake during pregnancy and the outcomes identified above?
○ What are the effects of potential confounders or interacting factors (such as other nutrients or use of other supplements, or smoking status)?
○ How is the efficacy or association of n-3 FA on the outcomes of interest affected by the ratio of different n-3 FAs, as components of dietary supplements or biomarkers?
○ How does the ratio of n-6 FA to n-3 FA intakes or biomarker concentrations affect the efficacy or association of n-3 FA on the outcomes of interest?
○ Is there a threshold or dose-response relationship between n-3 FA exposures and the outcomes of interest or adverse events?
○ How does the duration of the intervention or exposure influence the effect of n-3 FA on the outcomes of interest?
○ What is the influence of maternal intakes of n-3 fatty acids or the n-3 fatty acid content of maternal breast milk (with or without knowledge of maternal intake of n-3 FA) or n-3 FA-supplemented infant formula or intakes of n-3 FA from sources other than maternal breast milk or supplemented infant formula on the following outcomes in term or preterm human infants?
Growth patterns
Neurological development
Visual function
Cognitive development
Autism
Learning disorders
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Atopic dermatitis
Allergies
Respiratory illness
○ What are the associations of the n-3 FA content or the n-6/n-3 FA ratio of maternal or fetal or child biomarkers with each of the outcomes identified above?
○ What are the short and long term risks related to maternal intake of n-3 FA during pregnancy or breastfeeding on:
Pregnant women
Breastfeeding women
Term or preterm human infants at or after birth
○ What are the short and long term risks associated with intakes of n-3 FA by human infants (as maternal breast milk or infant formula supplemented with n-3 FA)?
○ Are adverse events associated with specific sources or doses?
○ Healthy pregnant women (for outcomes of birth weight, intrauterine growth restriction/small for gestational age, duration of gestation, risk of pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, or pregnancy hypertension)
○ Pregnant women with a history of pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, or pregnancy hypertension (only for outcome of risk of pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, or pregnancy hypertension)
○ Pregnant women with a history of major depressive disorder or postpartum depression (only for the outcome of risk for peripartum depression)
○ Healthy preterm or full term infants of healthy women/mothers whose n-3 fatty acid exposures were monitored during pregnancy
○ Breastfed infants of healthy mothers whose n-3 fatty acid exposure was monitored and/or who participated in an n-3 fatty acid intervention during breastfeeding beginning at birth
○ Healthy preterm or full term infants with and without family history of respiratory conditions (for outcomes related to atopic dermatitis, allergy, respiratory conditions) of mothers whose n-3 exposures were monitored during pregnancy and/or breastfeeding
○ Healthy children or children with a family history of a respiratory disorder, a cognitive or visual development disorder, autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, or learning disabilities, age 0 to 18 years who participated in an n-3 fatty acid-supplemented infant formula intervention or an n-3 supplementation trial during infancy
○ Healthy pregnant women or pregnant women in the other categories described above
○ Offspring of women enrolled in an n-3 fatty acid intervention during pregnancy
○ Offspring of women whose exposure to n-3 fatty acids was assessed during pregnancy
○ Children whose exposure to n-3 fatty acids (through breast milk, infant formula, or supplementation) was monitored during the first year of life
• Interventions (KQ1, 2, 3 unless specified):
○ N-3 fatty acid supplements (
○ N-3 fatty acid supplemented foods (
○ High-dose pharmaceutical grade n-3 fatty acids,
Exclude doses of more than 6g/d, except for trials that report adverse events
○ N-3 fatty acid enriched infant formulae (KQ2,3)
N-3 enriched follow-up formulae
Exclude parenterally administered sources
○ Marine oils, including fish oil, cod liver oil, and menhaden oil with quantified n-3 content
○ Algal or other marine sources of omega-3 fatty acids with quantified n-3 content
• Exposures (KQ1,2)
○ Dietary n-3 fatty acids from foods if concentrations are quantified in food frequency questionnaires
○ Breast milk n-3 fatty acids (KQ2)
○ Biomarkers (EPA, DHA, ALA, DPA, SDA), including but not limited to the following:
Plasma fatty acids
Erythrocyte fatty acids
Adipocyte fatty acids
• Inactive comparators:
○ Placebo (KQ1, 2, 3)
○ Non-fortified infant formula (KQ2)
• Active comparators
○ Different n-3 sources
○ Different n-3 concentrations (KQ1, 2, 3)
○ Alternative n-3 enriched infant formulae (KQ2)
○ Soy-based infant formula (KQ2)
○ Diet with different level of Vitamin E exposure
• Maternal outcomes (KQ1)
○ Blood pressure control
Incidence of gestational hypertension
Maternal blood pressure
Incidence of pre-eclampsia, eclampsia
○ Peripartum depression
Incidence of antepartum depression
Incidence of postpartum depression,
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression scale
Structured Clinical Interview (SCI)
○ Gestational length
Duration of gestation
Incidence of preterm birth
○ Birth weight
Mean birth weight
Incidence of low birth weight/small for gestational age
• Pediatric Outcomes (KQ2)
○ Neurological/visual/cognitive development
Visual development,
Visual evoked potential acuity
Visual acuity testing
Teller's Acuity Card test
Electroretinography
Cognitive/neurological development,
EEGs as measure of maturity
Psychomotor developmental index from Bayley's scales
Bayley's mental development index
Knobloch, Passamanick, and Sherrard's developmental Screening Inventory scores
Neurological impairment assessment
Active sleep, quiet sleep, sleep-wake transition, wakefulness
Fagan Test of Infant Intelligence
Stanford-Binet IQ
Receptive Vocabulary
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised
Auditory development
Nerve conduction test
Latency Auditory evoked potential
○ Risk for ADHD
Studies will be included only if they employ a validated evaluation procedure
E.g., Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
Behavioral rating scales,
○ Risk for Autism spectrum disorders
Studies will be included only if they employ a validated evaluation procedure
○ Risk for learning disabilities
Studies will be included only if they employ a validated evaluation procedure
○ Risk for atopic dermatitis
○ Risk for allergies
Studies will be included only if they employ a validated allergy assessment procedure, preferably challenge
○ Incidence of respiratory disorders
Spirometry in children 5 and over (peak expiratory flow rate [PEFR] and forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1])
• KQ 3: Adverse effects of intervention(s)
○ Incidence of specific adverse events reported in trials by study arm
• Duration of intervention or follow-up
○ Key Question 1,3 (maternal interventions/exposures):
Interventions implemented anytime during pregnancy but preferably during the first or second trimester
Followup duration is anytime during pregnancy (for maternal outcomes of pre/eclampsia or maternal hypertension); term (for outcomes related to birth weight, duration of pregnancy); or within the first 6 months postpartum (for the outcome of postpartum depression)
○ Key Question 2, 3 (infant exposures):
Interventions implemented within one month of birth or exposures measured within 1 month of birth
Followup duration is 0 to 18 years
• Community-dwelling individuals seen by primary care physicians or obstetricians in private or academic medical practices (KQ1, 3)
• Community dwelling children seen in outpatient health care or educational settings (KQ2, 3)
Study designs will be limited to Randomized Controlled Trials, prospective cohort studies, and nested case control studies (cross-sectional, retrospective cohort, and case study designs will be excluded; studies must have measure of intake/exposure prior to outcome). Language will be restricted to English. Only peer-reviewed studies will be included; unpublished studies will not be included.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed changes to the currently approved information collection project:
Comments on this notice must be received by October 13, 2015.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
The CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey (“the CAHPS CG Survey”) is a tool for collecting standardized information on patients' experiences with physicians and staff in outpatient medical practices. The results, enable clinicians and administrators to assess and improve patients' experiences with medical care. The CAHPS CG Survey is a product of the CAHPS® program, which is funded and administered by AHRQ, and CAHPS® is a registered trademark of AHRQ. AHRQ works closely with a consortium of public and private research organizations to develop and maintain surveys and tools to advance patient-centered care. In 1999, the CAHPS Consortium began work on a survey that would assess patients' experiences with medical groups and clinicians. The CAHPS Consortium developed a preliminary instrument known as the CAHPS Group Practices Survey (G-CAHPS), with input from the Pacific Business Group on Health, which developed a Consumer Assessment Survey that is the precedent for this type of instrument.
In August 2004, AHRQ issued a notice in the
The current CAHPS Consortium includes AHRQ, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), RAND, Yale School of Public Health, and Westat.
AHRQ developed the database for CAHPS CG Survey data following the CAHPS Health Plan Database as a model. The CAHPS Health Plan Database was developed in 1998 in response to requests from health plans, purchasers, and CMS for comparative data to support public reporting of health plan ratings, health plan accreditation and quality improvement (OMB Control Number 0935-0165, expiration 5/31/2017). Demand for comparative results from the CG Survey has grown as well, and therefore AHRQ developed a dedicated CAHPS Clinician and Group Database to support benchmarking, quality improvement, and research (OMB Control Number 0935-0197, expiration 06/30/2015).
The CAHPS Database contains data from AHRQ's standardized CAHPS Surveys which provide comparative measures of quality to health care purchasers, consumers, regulators, and policy makers. The CAHPS Database also provides data for AHRQ's annual National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report.
Health systems, medical groups and practices that administer the CAHPS Clinician & Group Survey according to CAHPS specifications can participate in this project. A health system is a complex of facilities, organizations, and providers of health care in a specified geographic area. A medical group is defined as a medical group, Accountable Care Organization (ACO), state organization or some other grouping of medical practices. A practice is an outpatient facility in a specific location whose physicians and other providers share administrative and clinical support staff. Each practice located in a building containing multiple medical offices is considered a separate practice.
The goal of this project is to renew the CAHPS CG Database. This database will continue to update the CAHPS CG Database with the latest results of the CAHPS CG Survey. These results consist of 34 items that measure 5 areas or composites of patients' experiences with physicians and staff in outpatient medical practices. This database:
(1) Allows participating organizations to compare their survey results with those of other outpatient medical groups;
(2) Provides data to medical groups and practices to facilitate internal assessment and learning in the quality improvement process; and
(3) Provides information to help identify strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient care. The five composite measures are:
The collection of information for the CAHPS CG Database for Clinicians and Groups is being conducted pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services; quality measurement and improvement; and health surveys and database development 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), (2) and (8).
To achieve the goal of this project, the following activities and data collections will be implemented:
(1) Registration Form—The purpose of this form is to determine the eligibility status and initiate the registration process for participating organizations seeking to voluntarily submit their CAHPS CG Survey data to the CAHPS CG Database. The point of contact (POC) at the participating organization (or parent organization) will complete the form. The POC is either a corporate-level health care manager or a survey vendor who contracts with a participating organization to collect the CAHPS CG Survey data.
(2) Data Use Agreement (DUA)—The purpose of this DUA is to obtain authorization from participating organizations to use their voluntarily submitted CAHPS CG Survey data for analysis and reporting according to the terms specified in the DUA. The POC at the organization will complete the form. Vendors do not sign the DUA.
(3) Data Submission—The number of submissions to the database may vary each year because medical groups and practices may not administer the survey and submit data each year. Data submission is typically handled by one POC who either is a health system, medical group or practice or a survey vendor who contracts with the medical group or practice to collect their data. After the POC has completed the Registration Form and the Data Use Agreement, they will submit their patient-level data from the CAHPS CG Survey to the CAHPS CG Database. Data on the organizational characteristics such as ownership, number of patient visits per year, medical specialty, and information related to survey administration such as mode, dates of survey administration, sample size, and response rate, which are collected as part of CAHPS CG
Survey operations are also submitted. Each submission will consist of 3 data files:
(1) A Group File that contains information about the group ownership and size of group, (2) a Practice File containing type of practice, the practice ownership and affiliation (
Survey data from the CAHPS CG Database is used to produce four types of products:
(1) An online reporting of results available to the public on the CAHPS Database Web site; (2) individual participant comparative reports that are confidential and customized for each participating organization that submits their data, (3) an annual Chartbook that presents summary-level results in a downloadable PDF file; and (4) a dataset available to researchers for additional analyses.
Information for the CAHPS CG Database has been collected by AHRQ through its contractor Westat on an annual basis since 2010. Participating organizations are asked to voluntarily submit their data to the CAHPS CG Database each year. The data is cleaned with standardized programs, then aggregated and used to produce comparative results. In addition, reports are produced that compare the participating organizations' results to the database in a password-protected section of the CAHPS CG Database online reporting system.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated burden hours for the respondent to participate in the CAHPS CG Database. The 20 POCs in exhibit 1 are the number of estimated vendors. The 240 POCs in exhibit 1 are the number of estimated participating Health/Medical entities.
Each vendor will register online for submission. The online Registration form will require about 5 minutes to complete. The data use agreement will be completed by the 240 participating Health/Medical entities. Vendors do not sign DUAs. The DUA requires about 3 minutes to sign and return by fax, mail or to upload directly in the submission system. Each submitter will provide a copy of their questionnaire and the survey data file in the required file format. Survey data files must conform to the data file layout specifications provided by the CAHPS CG Database. The number of data submissions per POC will vary because some may submit data for multiple practices, while others may submit data for only one. Once a data file is uploaded the file will be automatically checked to ensure it conforms to the specifications and a data file status report will be produced and made available to the submitter. Submitters will review each report and will be expected to fix any errors in their data file and resubmit if necessary. It will take about one hour to complete each file submission. The total burden is estimated to be 454 hours annually.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to complete the submission process. The cost burden is estimated to be $18,613 annually.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of delisting.
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on May 5, 2015.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery. HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when the PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
The McGuckin Methods International, Inc., PSO number P0063 chose to let its listing expire by not seeking continued listing. Accordingly, McGuckin Methods International, Inc. was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on May 5, 2015.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is soliciting nominations for membership on the BSC, NCEH/ATSDR. The BSC, NCEH/ATSDR consists of 16 experts
Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishments of the Board's objectives. Nominees will be selected from experts with experience in preventing human diseases and disabilities caused by environmental conditions. Experts in the disciplines of toxicology, epidemiology, environmental or occupational medicine, behavioral science, risk assessment, exposure assessment, environmental justice, laboratory science, and experts in public health and other related disciplines will be considered. Members may be invited to serve up to four-year terms.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act and implementing regulations stipulate that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented and the Board's function. Consideration is given to a broad representation of geographic areas within the U.S., as well as gender, all ethnic and racial groups, persons with disabilities, and several factors including: (1) The committee's mission; (2) the geographic, ethnic, social, economic, or scientific impact of the advisory committee's recommendations; (3) the types of specific perspectives required, for example, those of consumers, technical experts, the public at-large, academia, business, or other sectors; (4) the need to obtain divergent points of view on the issues before the advisory committee; and (5) the relevance of State, local, or tribal governments to the development of the advisory committee's recommendations. Nominees must be U.S. citizens.
Nominations should be sent, in writing, and postmarked by September 15, 2015. The following information must be submitted for each candidate: Name, affiliation, address, telephone number, and current curriculum vitae. Email addresses are requested if available. Nominations should be sent, in writing, to: Sandra Malcom, Committee Management Specialist, NCEH/ATSDR, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway (MS-F45), Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Email address:
Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the “Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report, OGE 450” for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This form allows CDC to determine whether there is a conflict of interest between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded at
This form should not be submitted as part of a nomination.
Contact Person for More Information: Sandra Malcom, Committee Management Specialist, NCEH/ATSDR, 4770 Buford Highway, Mail Stop F-61, Chamblee, Georgia 30345; Telephone 770/488-0575 or 770/488-0577, Fax: 770/488-3377; Email:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Regulations Under the Federal Import Milk Act” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
On June 23, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Regulations Under the Federal Import Milk Act” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0212. The approval expires on July 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled, “Irradiation in the Production, Processing and Handling of Food” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
On June 24, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled, “Irradiation in the Production, Processing and Handling of Food” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0186. The approval expires on July 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
Further information regarding the NACNHSC including the roster of members, past meetings summaries is available at the following Web site:
Members of the public and interested parties may request to participate in the meeting by contacting Ashley Carothers via email at
In addition, please be advised that committee members are given copies of all written statements submitted from the public. Any further public participation will be solely at the discretion of the Chair, with approval of the DFO. Registration through the designated contact for the public comment session is required.
Anyone requesting information regarding the NACNHSC should contact CAPT Shari Campbell, Designated Federal Official, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, in one of three ways: (1) Send a request to the following address: CAPT Shari Campbell, Designated Federal Official, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, Parklawn Building, Room 8C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call (301) 594-4251; or (3) send an email to
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Correction of notice.
This document corrects an error that appeared in the notice published in the July 31, 2015,
Ms. Karen Gorirossi or Dr. Kristen Grace at 240-453-8800.
In FR Doc. 2015-18794 of July 31, 2015 (80 FR 45661-45662), there is an error in the grant information. The error is identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section below.
In FR Doc. 2015-18794 of July 31, 2015 (80 FR 45661-45662), make the following correction:
1. On page 45661, third column, in FR Doc. 2015-18794, second paragraph, last line, delete “and TA MH020002” so that the last two lines of the paragraph read “grants R01 MH087214 and R01 MH077105.”
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Fogarty International Center Advisory Board.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Mental Health 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
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is requesting a revision of the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data collection (OMB No. 0930-0335), which expires on January 31, 2016. TEDS is a compilation of client-level substance abuse treatment admission and discharge data submitted by states on clients treated in facilities that receive state funds. SAMHSA is requesting the addition of client-level mental health admission and update/discharge data (MH-TEDS/CLD) submitted by states on clients treated in facilities that receive state funds. These mental health data have been previously
TEDS/MH-TEDS/CLD data are collected to obtain information on the number of admissions and updates/discharges at publicly-funded substance abuse treatment and mental health services facilities and on the characteristics of clients receiving services at those facilities. TEDS/MH-TEDS/CLD also monitors trends in the demographic, substance use, and mental health characteristics of admissions. In addition, several of the data elements used to calculate performance measures for the Substance Abuse Block Grant (SABG) and Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) applications are collected in TEDS/MH-TEDS/CLD.
This request includes:
• Continuation of collection of TEDS (substance abuse) client-level admissions and discharge data;
• Continuation of collection of MH-TEDS client-level admissions and update/discharge data of mental health clients beyond the pilot phase; and
• Addition of collection of MHCLD client-level admissions and update/discharge data (transferred from OMB No. 0930-0168).
Most states collect the TEDS/MH-TEDS/CLD data elements from their treatment providers for their own administrative purposes and are able to submit a cross-walked extract of their data to TEDS/MH-TEDS/CLD. No changes are expected in the (substance abuse) TEDS collection. No changes are expected in the (mental health) MH-CLD collection (other than recording the MH-TEDS/CLD burden hours separately from the Substance Abuse Block Grant (SABG) and Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) application approval instructions (OMB No. 0930-0168) and the addition of MH-TEDS beyond the pilot phase. No data element changes for TEDS/MH-TEDS/CLD are expected.
The estimated annual burden for the separate TEDS/MH-TEDS/CLD activities is as follows:
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 2-1057, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857 or email her a copy at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Cargo Container and Road Vehicle for Transport under Customs Seal. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours or to the Information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before October 13, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments may be mailed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
On July 31, 2015 at 80 FR 45675, HUD published a 60 day notice of proposed information collection entitled CDBG-DR Expenditure Deadline Extension Request Template (Pub. L. 113-2 Grantees Only). This notice is a 30 day notice of proposed information collection.
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Diane Schmutzler, SNAPS Specialist, CPD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Diane Schmutzler at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in section A.
The CoC Homeless Assistance Grant Application (OMB 2506-0112) is the second phase of the information collection process to be used in HUD's CoC Program Competition authorized by the HEARTH Act. During this phase, HUD collects information from the state and local Continuum of Cares (CoCs) through the CoC Consolidated Application which is comprised of the CoC Application, and the Priority Listing which includes the individual project recipients' project applications.
The CoC Consolidated Grant Application is necessary for the selection of proposals submitted to HUD (by State and local governments, public housing authorities, and nonprofit organization) for the grant funds available through the Continuum of Care Program, in order to make
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notice.
This notice sets the date of September 14, 2015, meeting of the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission.
The public meeting of the Advisory Commission will be held on Monday, September 14, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. (EASTERN).
The meeting will be held at Schoodic Education and Research Center, Winter Harbor, Maine 04693.
The Commission meeting will consist of the following proposed agenda items:
Sheridan Steele, Superintendent, Acadia National Park, P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, Maine 04609, telephone (207) 288-3338.
The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral or written presentations to the Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be made to the Superintendent at least seven days prior to the meeting. Before including your address, telephone 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 may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notice.
This notice sets forth the date of the 299th Meeting of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission.
The public meeting of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission will be held on Monday, September 14, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. (EASTERN).
The 299th meeting of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission will take place on Monday, September 14, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., in the conference room at park headquarters, 99 Marconi Station Road, in Wellfleet, Massachusetts 02667 to discuss the following:
Further information concerning the meeting may be obtained from George E. Price, Jr., Superintendent, Cape Cod National Seashore, 99 Marconi Site, Wellfleet, MA 02667, or via telephone at (508) 771-2144.
The Commission was reestablished pursuant to Public Law 87-126, as amended by Public Law 105-280. The purpose of the Commission is to consult with the Secretary of the Interior, or her designee, with respect to matters relating to the development of Cape Cod National Seashore, and with respect to carrying out the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act establishing the Seashore.
The meeting is open to the public. It is expected that 15 persons will be able to attend the meeting in addition to Commission members. Interested
Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of proposed amendments and open hearings.
The Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence have proposed amendments to the following rules:
The text of the proposed rules amendments and the accompanying Committee Notes can be found at the United States Federal Courts' Web site at:
All written comments and suggestions with respect to the proposed amendments may be submitted on or after the opening of the period for public comment on August 14, 2015, but no later than February 16, 2016. Written comments must be submitted electronically, following the instructions provided at the Web site address provided above. In accordance with established procedures, all comments submitted are available for public inspection.
Public hearings are scheduled to be held on these proposed amendments as follows:
• Bankruptcy Rule 1006 in Washington, DC on January 22, 2016, and in Pasadena, CA, on January 29, 2016;
• Rules of Evidence 803 and 902 in Phoenix, AZ, on January 6, 2016, and in Washington, DC, on February 12, 2016.
Those wishing to testify should contact the Secretary at the address below in writing at least 30 days before the hearing.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE., Suite 7-240, Washington, DC 20544, Telephone (202) 502-1820.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on March 18, 2015, applicable to workers of Maverick Tube Corporation dba TenarisConroe, a subsidiary of Tenaris S.A., including on-site leased workers from TESIS Automation and Janus Automation, Conroe, Texas. The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the
At the request of a State Workforce Official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of oil country tubular goods.
The investigation confirmed that worker separations from Maverick Tube Corporation, Houston, Texas are attributable to the increased imports that were the basis for the original certification. The worker group includes workers at the following locations: 2200 West Loop South, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77027; 8204 Fairbanks N Houston Road, Houston, Texas 77064; and 302 McCarty Street, Houston, Texas 77029.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-85,821 is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of Maverick Tube Corporation dba TenarisConroe, a subsidiary of Tenaris S.A., including on-site leased workers from TESIS Automation and Janus Automation, Conroe, Texas (TA-W-85,821) and Maverick Tube Corporation, a subsidiary of Tenaris S.A., Houston, Texas (TA-W-85,821A) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 2, 2014 through March 18, 2017, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Temporary Labor Camps Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 10, 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-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Temporary Labor Camp Standards information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.142. It is mandatory for an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standard to report to the local public health officer the name and address of any individual in the camp known to have, or suspected of having, a communicable disease. The employer is also required to notify local public health authorities of each occurrence of a suspected case of food poisoning or of an unusual prevalence of any illnesses in which fever, diarrhea, sore throat, vomiting, or jaundice is a prevalent symptom. These reporting requirements are necessary to minimize the possibility of communicable disease epidemics spreading throughout the camps and endangering the health of the camp residents. In addition, the Standard requires marking “for men” and “for women” on certain toilet rooms. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(9), 655, and 657(c).
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Guam Military Base Realignment Contractors Recruitment Standards,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 10, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Guam Military Base Realignment Contractors Recruitment Standards information collection. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84, enacted October 28, 2009) section 2834(a) amended Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 section 2824(c) to require an expanded effort to recruit U.S. and other eligible workers for employment on Guam military base realignment construction projects.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor.
Notice.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 30 CFR part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This
Copies of the final decisions are posted on MSHA's Web site at
Roslyn B. Fontaine, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9475 (Voice),
Under section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, a mine operator may petition and the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) may modify the application of a mandatory safety standard to that mine if the Secretary determines that: (1) An alternative method exists that will guarantee no less protection for the miners affected than that provided by the standard; or (2) the application of the standard will
MSHA bases the final decision on the petitioner's statements, any comments and information submitted by interested persons, and a field investigation of the conditions at the mine. In some instances, MSHA may approve a petition for modification on the condition that the mine operator complies with other requirements noted in the decision.
On the basis of the findings of MSHA's investigation, and as designee of the Secretary, MSHA has granted or partially granted the following petitions for modification:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA International Space Station (ISS) Advisory Committee. The purpose of the meeting is to review all aspects related to the safety and operational readiness of the ISS, and to assess the possibilities for using the ISS for future space exploration.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015, 2:00-3:00 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Glennan Conference Room (1Q39), 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546. Note: 1Q39 is located on the first floor of NASA Headquarters.
Mr. Patrick Finley, Office of International and Interagency Relations, (202) 358-5684, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
This meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. This meeting is also accessible via teleconference. To participate telephonically, please contact Mr. Patrick Finley (202) 358-5684, before 4:30 p.m., Local Time, August 26, 2014. You will need to provide your name, affiliation, and phone number.
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109-13, any attendees with drivers licenses issued from non-compliant states/territories must present a second form of ID [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9]. Non-compliant states/territories are: American Samoa, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Mr. Finley via email at
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide agencies with mandatory instructions for what to do with records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The instructions authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by September 10, 2015. Once NARA appraises the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send you these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Management Services (ACNR) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Management Services (ACNR); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media-neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media-neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it has created or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media-neutral unless the item is specifically limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
No agencies may destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice states that the schedule has agency-wide applicability (in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency) or lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records, provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction), and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.
1. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2015-0035, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system that contains drug testing records including specimen tracking and tests results.
2. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2015-0036, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains records relating to work performance reviews.
3. Department of Defense, Army Air Force Exchange Service (DAA-0334-2015-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Daily financial transaction logs created at point-of-sale sites in military exchanges.
4. Department of Defense, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DAA-0372-2015-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to manage professional training for auditors.
5. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service (DAA-0513-2015-0006, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Epidemiological outbreak investigation records, including reports, surveys, studies, results, internal correspondence, and after action reports.
6. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service (DAA-0513-2015-0007, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Facility construction project files, to include internal correspondence, estimates, agreements, summaries, and reports.
7. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA-0566-2015-0002, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Copies of intake forms from organizations providing resettlement services for eligible Cuban and Haitian refugees, and related statistical reports.
8. Department of the Interior, Agency-wide (DAA-0048-2015-0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Routine surveillance recordings.
9. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (DAA-0065-2015-0005, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Health and medical records for persons not employed by the Bureau, including non-hired applicants, contractors,
10. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (DAA-0129-2015-0002, 11 items, 11 temporary items). Treatment files of inmates in re-entry facilities, and treatment staff vendor contracts.
11. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps (DAA-0127-2013-0014, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system used to manage the enlistment process for individual Marines, including records relating to non-selected prospective personnel.
12. Department of the Treasury, United States Mint (DAA-0104-2013-0002, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Master files and outputs of an electronic information system used to track criminal incidents that occur on agency property.
13. Department of the Treasury, United States Mint (DAA-0104-2013-0003, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records collected in the investigation of criminal activity committed by juvenile offenders on agency property.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day Notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an existing information collection request collection request (ICR) 3206-0194, Annuity Supplement Earnings Report. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 13, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Retirement Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415-3500, Attention: Alberta Butler, Room 2349, or sent by email to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-AC, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson or sent by email to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of OPM, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of OPM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
RI 92-22, Annuity Supplement Earnings Report, is used each year to obtain the earned income of Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) annuitants receiving an annuity supplement. The annuity supplement is paid to eligible FERS annuitants who are not retired on disability and are not yet age 62. The supplement approximates the portion of a full career Social Security benefit earned while under FERS and ends at age 62. Like Social Security benefits, the annuity supplement is subject to an earnings limitation.
On June 2, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Fund will be an actively-managed exchange-traded fund (“ETF”). The Shares will be offered by the Trust, which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on September 20, 2012. The Trust is registered with the Commission as an investment company and has filed a registration statement on Form N-1A (“Registration Statement”) with the Commission.
The Fund's investment objective will be to seek to provide total return through a combination of capital appreciation and income. Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest not less than 80% of its total assets in exchange-listed equity securities of companies in the Utility Sector (“Utility Sector Companies”). The Fund considers a company to be a “Utility Sector Company” if the company is a utility or if at least 50% of the company's assets or customers are committed to (or at least 50% of the company's revenues, gross income or profits are derived from) the provision of products, services, or equipment for the generation or distribution of electricity, gas, or water.
To seek its investment objective, the Fund may hold cash and invest in U.S. exchange-traded options overlying securities and securities indexes and the following cash equivalents: money market instruments; short-duration, high-quality repurchase agreements;
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Trading in the Shares will be halted under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pause provisions under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12). Trading in the Shares may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable,
The Exchange represents that the Shares are deemed to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made representations, including the following:
(1) The Shares will be subject to Rule 5735, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and other exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”),
(4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in creation units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (c) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value is disseminated; (d) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (e) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing
(5) For initial and continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.
(6) The Fund's net assets that are invested in exchange-traded equities, including ETPs and common stock, will be invested in instruments that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange.
(7) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities and other illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment). The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid securities or other illiquid assets.
(8) Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest not less than 80% of its total assets in exchange-listed equity securities of companies in the utility sector.
(9) Under normal market conditions, no more than 20% of the value of the Fund's net assets will be invested in any combination of cash and cash equivalents, which include only money market instruments, short duration repurchase agreements, and short duration commercial paper, and U.S. exchange-traded options on securities and securities indexes.
(10) The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective. The Fund does not presently intend to engage in any form of borrowing for investment purposes, except in the case of short sales and will not be operated as a “leveraged ETF,”
(11) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in the Notice, and the Exchange's description of the Fund.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 204 requires that, subject to certain limited exceptions, if a participant of a registered clearing agency has a fail to deliver position at a registered clearing agency it must immediately close out the fail to deliver position by purchasing or borrowing securities by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on the settlement day following the day the participant incurred the fail to deliver position. Rule 204 is intended to help further the Commission's goal of reducing fails to deliver by maintaining the reductions in fails to deliver achieved by the adoption of temporary Rule 204T, as well as other actions taken by the Commission. In addition, Rule 204 is intended to help further the Commission's goal of addressing potentially abusive “naked” short selling in all equity securities.
The information collected under Rule 204 will continue to be retained and/or provided to other entities pursuant to the specific rule provisions and will be available to the Commission and self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) examiners upon request. The information collected will continue to aid the Commission and SROs in monitoring compliance with these requirements. In addition, the information collected will aid those subject to Rule 204 in complying with its requirements. These collections of information are mandatory.
Several provisions under Rule 204 will impose a “collection of information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
I. Allocation Notification Requirement: As of December 31, 2014, there were 4,184 registered broker-dealers. Each of these broker-dealers could clear trades through a participant of a registered clearing agency and, therefore, become subject to the notification requirements of Rule 204(d). If a broker-dealer has been allocated a portion of a fail to deliver position in an equity security and after the beginning of regular trading hours on the applicable close-out date, the broker-dealer has to determine whether or not that portion of the fail to deliver position was not closed out in accordance with Rule 204(a). We estimate that a broker-dealer will have to make such determination with respect to approximately 2.44 equity securities per day.
II. Demonstration Requirement for Fails to Deliver on Long Sales: As of
III. Pre-Borrow Notification Requirement: As of December 31, 2014, there were 175 participants of NSCC, the primary registered clearing agency responsible for clearing U.S. transactions that were registered as broker-dealers.
IV. Certification Requirement: If the broker-dealer determines that it has not incurred a fail to deliver position on settlement date in an equity security for which the participant has a fail to deliver position at a registered clearing agency or has purchased securities in accordance with the conditions specified in Rule 204(e), we estimate that a broker-dealer will have to make such determinations with respect to approximately 2.44 securities per day. As of December 31, 2014, there were 4,184 registered broker-dealers. Each of these broker-dealers may clear trades through a participant of a registered clearing agency. We estimate that on average, a broker-dealer will have to certify to the participant that it has not incurred a fail to deliver position on settlement date in an equity security for which the participant has a fail to deliver position at a registered clearing agency or, alternatively, that it is in compliance with the requirements set forth in Rule 204(e), 2,572,657 times per year (4,184 broker-dealers certifying once per day on 2.44 securities, multiplied by 252 trading days in a year). The total approximate estimated annual burden hour per year will be approximately 411,625 burden hours (2,572,657 multiplied by 0.16 hours/certification).
V. Pre-Fail Credit Demonstration Requirement: If a broker-dealer purchases or borrows securities in accordance with the conditions specified in Rule 204(e) and determines that it has a net long position or net flat position on the settlement day on which the broker-dealer purchases or borrows securities we estimate that a broker-dealer will have to make such determination with respect to approximately 2.44 securities per day.
The total aggregate annual burden for the collection of information undertaken pursuant to all five provisions is thus 1,912,251 hours per year (411,625 + 268,128 + 409,248 + 411,625 + 411,625). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may review background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to modify the securities that are subject to the NYSE Amex Options Market Maker Premium Product Fees. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective August 4, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to modify the securities that are subject to the NYSE Amex Options Market Maker Premium Product Fees. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective August 4, 2015.
In August, 2012, the Exchange introduced the Premium Product Fees, which charges a monthly fee to any NYSE Amex Options Market Maker transacting in the most active issues trading on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to amend the list of Premium Products to reflect the most actively traded securities on the Exchange today, which have changed since the fees were introduced in 2012.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the change to the list of Premium Products is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change applies to all NYSE Amex Options Market Makers equally, except for those market makers who qualify as NYSE Amex Floor Market Makers and achieve 75% or more of their volumes in open or public outcry, which Marker Makers are exempt because the Exchange believes that public outcry markets serve an important role in the price discovery process that benefits all participants on the Exchange and in the marketplace.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Adjudicatory matters; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ad-13 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-13) requires an annual study and evaluation of internal accounting controls under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
Approximately 100 independent, professional transfer agents must file the independent accountant's report annually. We estimate that the annual internal time burden for each transfer agent to comply with Rule 17Ad-13 by submitting the report prepared by the independent accountant to the Commission is minimal. The time required for the independent accountant to prepare the accountant's report varies with each transfer agent depending on the size and nature of the transfer agent's operations. The Commission estimates that, on average, each report can be completed by the independent accountant in 120 hours, resulting in a total of 12,000 external hours annually (120 hours × 100 reports). The burden
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have any practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ad-15 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-15) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
There are approximately 429 registered transfer agents. The staff estimates that each transfer agent will spend about 40 hours annually to comply with Rule 17Ad-15, or a total of 17,160 hours for all transfer agents (429 × 40 hours = 17,160 hours). The Commission staff estimates that compliance staff work at each registered transfer agent will result in an internal cost of compliance (at an estimated hourly wage of $283) of $11,320 per year per transfer agent (40 hours x $283 per hour = $ 11,320 per year). Therefore, the aggregate annual internal cost of compliance for the approximately 429 registered transfer agents is approximately $4,856,280 ($11,320 × 429 = $4,856,280).
This rule does not involve the collection of confidential information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to discontinue the Market Access and Connectivity (“MAC”) Subsidy. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective August 1, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to discontinue the MAC Subsidy as described below. The Exchange proposes to implement this fee change effective August 1, 2015.
The Exchange proposes to discontinue fees for the MAC Subsidy, which is paid to ATP Holders that provide access and connectivity to the Exchange to other ATP Holders and/or utilize such access themselves. In February 2014, the Exchange implemented the MAC Subsidy for those ATP Holders that provide access and connectivity to the Exchange for the purposes of electronic order routing either to other ATP Holders and/or utilize such access themselves.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the discontinuance of the MAC Subsidy is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would result in all similarly situated ATP Holders being treated in the same manner, regardless of volume delivered to the Exchange. The Exchange further believes the proposed rule change is reasonable because removing the MAC Subsidy from the Fee Schedule will provide clarity and greater transparency regarding the Exchange's fees.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4234-DR), dated 07/31/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 07/31/2015, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14403B and for economic injury is 14404B
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice; request for comments.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) is providing notice that the Republic of Indonesia has requested the establishment of a dispute settlement panel under the
Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be submitted on or before September 9, 2015, to be assured of timely consideration by USTR.
Public comments should be submitted electronically to
If (as explained below) the comment contains confidential information, then the comment should be submitted by fax only to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640.
Micah Myers, Associate General Counsel, or Juli Schwartz, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-3150.
Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. Consistent with this obligation, USTR is providing notice that the establishment of a dispute settlement panel has been requested pursuant to the DSU. The panel will hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland.
On November 17, 2010, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“DOC”) published antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders (75 FR 70205; 75 FR 70206) on certain coated paper from Indonesia. On March 13, 2015, Indonesia requested WTO dispute settlement consultations regarding some of DOC's determinations in the CVD investigation, as well as the U.S. International Trade Commission's (“ITC”) threat of material injury determinations in both the AD and CVD proceedings. Indonesia and the United States held consultations in Geneva on June 25, 2015.
On July 9, 2015, Indonesia requested that the WTO establish a dispute settlement panel. In its panel request, Indonesia contends that the DOC's findings of countervailable subsidies with respect to a number of government practices in the logging and paper industries are inconsistent with Article VI of the
Indonesia also lists in its panel request the following items as part of its challenge: “the determinations by the [DOC] and [ITC] to initiate certain anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty investigations, the conduct of those investigations, any preliminary or final anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty determinations issued in those investigations, any definitive anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties imposed as a result of those investigations, including any notices, annexes, orders, decision memoranda, or other instruments issued by the United States in connection with the anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty measures.”
Indonesia contends DOC's determination that Indonesia provided standing timber for less than adequate remuneration breaches Article 2.1 of the SCM Agreement because DOC failed to properly examine whether the purported subsidy was “specific to an enterprise . . . within the jurisdiction of the granting authority” and did not cite to evidence establishing the existence of a “plan or scheme sufficient to constitute a `subsidy programme.'” Indonesia also alleges DOC breached Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement because it failed to determine the adequacy of remuneration “in relation to prevailing market conditions for the good . . . in question in the country of provision.” Indonesia alleges that these provisions were also breached through DOC's determinations that Indonesia's log export ban and debt forgiveness practices each conferred a benefit which constitutes a countervailable subsidy. With respect to debt forgiveness, Indonesia alleges that DOC improperly applied adverse facts available “without examining information Indonesia provided, and without examining whether Indonesia `refuse[d] access to, or otherwise [did] not provide'” the information, in breach of Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement.
Indonesia alleges that the ITC's threat determinations in the investigations at issue breach Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement because the ITC did not demonstrate “the existence of a causal relationship between the imports and the purported threat of injury to the domestic industry” and failed to “sufficiently examine known factors other than the allegedly dumped and subsidized imports which at the same time were in fact injuring the domestic injury.” In addition, Indonesia alleges the ITC's threat determinations breach Article 3.7 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.7 of the SCM Agreement because the threat findings were based on “allegation, conjecture [and] remote possibility”; were not supported by record evidence; and did not indicate a change in circumstances that was “clearly foreseen and imminent.” Further, Indonesia alleges the ITC's threat determinations breach Article 3.7 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.7 of the SCM Agreement because the ITC failed to demonstrate that the “totality of the factors considered lead to the conclusion that material injury would have occurred unless protective action was taken.” Indonesia alleges the ITC did not apply or consider “special care” in its threat of injury determinations, in contravention of Article 3.8 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.8 of the SCM Agreement.
Indonesia also claims the “requirement contained in 19 U.S.C. 1677(11)(B) that a tie vote in a threat of injury determination must be treated as an affirmative . . . [ITC] determination,” is, “as such,” inconsistent with Article 3.8 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.8 of the SCM Agreement “because the requirement does not consider or exercise special care.”
Finally, Indonesia alleges that these actions are inconsistent with Article 1 of the AD Agreement, Article 10 of the SCM Agreement, and Article VI of the GATT 1994.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit public comments electronically to
To submit comments via
The
A person requesting that information contained in a comment that he/she submitted, be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment containing business confidential information must be submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted to
USTR may determine that information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, is confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter:
(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;
(2) Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and
(3) Must provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice.
Pursuant to section 127(e) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement proceeding, docket number USTR-2015-0005, accessible to the public at
The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public regarding the dispute. If a dispute settlement panel is convened, or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the following documents will be made available to the public at
In the event that a dispute settlement panel is convened, or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the panel report and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body, will also be available on the Web site of the World Trade Organization, at
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a new information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning a new collection of information titled, “Bank Appeals Follow-Up Questionnaire.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 10, 2015.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-NEW, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-NEW, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to:
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
(a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of two individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
OFAC's actions described in this notice are effective on August 5, 2015.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On August 5, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following two individuals pursuant to E.O. 13224, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism”:
1. AL-KAWARI, 'Abd al-Latif Bin 'Abdallah Salih Muhammad (a.k.a. AL-KAWARI, 'Abd-al-Latif 'Abdallah; a.k.a. AL-KAWARI, 'Abd-al-Latif 'Abdallah Salih; a.k.a. AL-KAWWARI, 'Abd-al-Latif 'Abdallah; a.k.a. AL-KUWARI, 'Abd-al-Latif 'Abdallah Salih; a.k.a. “Abu Ali al-Kawari”), al-Laqtah, Qatar; DOB 28 Sep 1973; nationality Qatar; Passport 01020802 (Qatar); alt. Passport 00754833 (Qatar) issued 20 May 2007; alt. Passport 00490327 (Qatar) issued 28 Jul 2001; National ID No. 27363400684 (Qatar) (individual) [SDGT]. (Linked to: ISLAMIC ARMY)
2. AL-KA'BI, Sa'd bin Sa'd Muhammad Shariyan (a.k.a. AL-KA'BI, Sa'd al-Sharyan; a.k.a. AL-KA'BI, Sa'd Bin Sa'd Muhammad Shiryan; a.k.a. AL-KA'BI, Sa'd Sa'd Muhammad Shiryan; a.k.a. “Abu Haza'”; a.k.a. “Abu Hazza'”; a.k.a. “Abu Sa'd”; a.k.a. “Abu Suad”; a.k.a. “'Umar al-Afghani”); DOB 15 Feb 1972; nationality Qatar; Passport 00966737 (Qatar) (individual) [SDGT]. (Linked to: AL NUSRAH FRONT)
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing (1) the names of one individual and one entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13551; (2) the name of one vessel in which one of these persons has an interest; (3) revised information on OFAC's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) to update identifiers for one entity previously designated pursuant to E.O. 13551; and (4) revised information on OFAC's SDN List to update identifiers for two individuals previously designated pursuant to E.O. 13382.
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective July 23, 2015.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance and Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, Tel.: 202/622-2490.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's Web site (
On July 23, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following two persons pursuant to E.O. 13551, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to North Korea”:
1. LAI, Leonard (a.k.a. LAI, Yong Chian); DOB 16 Jun 1958; Passport E3251534E (Singapore) expires 20 Mar 2018 (individual) [DPRK].
2. SENAT SHIPPING LIMITED (a.k.a. SENAT SHIPPING & TRADING PTE LTD; a.k.a. SENAT SHIPPING AGENCY LTD; a.k.a. SENAT SHIPPING AND TRADING LTD; a.k.a. SENAT SHIPPING AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED), 36-02 A, Suntec Tower, 9, Temasek Boulevard, Singapore 038989, Singapore; 9 Temasek Boulevard, 36-02A, Singapore 038989, Singapore; Panama City, Panama; PO Box 957, Offshore Incorporations Centre Road Town, Tortola, Virgin Islands, British; Identification Number IMO 5179245; alt. Identification Number IMO 5405737 [DPRK].
In addition, on July 23, 2015, OFAC identified the following vessel as blocked property of Senat Shipping Limited, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13551:
1. DAWNLIGHT; General Cargo; Mongolia flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9110236 (vessel) [DPRK].
In addition, on July 23, 2015, OFAC published the following revised information on the SDN List to reflect new names or other information for one entity previously designated pursuant to E.O. 13551:
1. OCEAN MARITIME MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. EAST SEA SHIPPING COMPANY; a.k.a. HAEYANG CREW MANAGEMENT COMPANY; a.k.a. KOREA MIRAE SHIPPING CO. LTD.), Dongheung-dong Changgwang Street, Chung-ku, PO Box 125, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Donghung Dong, Central District, PO Box 120, Pyongyang, Korea, North; No. 10, 10th Floor, Unit 1, Wu Wu Lu 32-1, Zhong Shan Qu, Dalian City, Liaoning Province, China; 22 Jin Cheng Jie, Zhong Shan Qu, Dalian City, Liaoning Province, China; 43-39 Lugovaya, Vladivostok, Russia; CPO Box 120, Tonghung-dong, Chung-gu, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Bangkok, Thailand; Lima, Peru; Port Said, Egypt; Singapore; Brazil; Hong Kong, China; Shenzhen, China; Identification Number IMO 1790183 [DPRK].
In addition, on July 23, 2015, OFAC published the following revised information on the SDN List to reflect new names or other information for two individuals previously designated pursuant to E.O. 13382, “Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters”:
1. RA, Kyong-Su (a.k.a. CHANG, MYONG HO; a.k.a. CHANG, MYONG-HO; a.k.a. CHANG, MYO'NG-HO), Beijing, China;
2. KIM, Tong-Myo'ng (a.k.a. KIM, CHIN-SO'K; a.k.a. KIM, HYOK CHOL; a.k.a. KIM, TONG MYONG; a.k.a. “KIM, JIN SOK”); DOB 1964; alt. DOB 28 Aug 1962; nationality Korea, North; Passport 290320764 (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: TANCHON COMMERCIAL BANK).
Board of Veterans' Appeals, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 13, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Sue Hamlin at (202) 632-5100 or FAX (202) 632-5841.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, BVA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of BVA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 10, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
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
By direction of the Secretary.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate critical habitat for
This rule is effective on September 10, 2015.
This final rule is available on the Internet at
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the decision record for this critical habitat designation and are available at
Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805-644-1766; facsimile 805-644-3958. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
On August 26, 2014, we published in the
The proposed listing rule for Vandenberg monkeyflower (78 FR 64840; October 29, 2013) contains a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.
On October 29, 2013, we published in the
In this final critical habitat designation, we first make final the minor changes that we proposed in the document that published in the
Second, in coordination with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Federal Penitentiary Complex at Lompoc (Lompoc Penitentiary), we conducted a visual inspection of the vegetation communities and existing land uses within proposed critical habitat Unit 1 (Vandenberg). Subsequently, we have reduced the size of this unit because we found that a portion of the proposed critical habitat area did not contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower. Unit 1 occurs exclusively on lands owned and managed by the Department of Justice. As a result of our evaluation, Unit 1 has
(1) Flat lands in the eastern portion of the unit (
(2) Flat lands in the western portion of the unit below 100 ft (30 m) in elevation (noting that the eastern and western portions are divided by a drainage), with the exception of the extreme western portion of the unit where we eliminated lands below 160 ft (49 m) in elevation where there is a break in slope, because the topography below 160 ft (49 m) flattens out in an alluvial floodplain that is used as a cattle pasture.
We are also recognizing other changes and clarifications recommended by one peer reviewer and the public specifically related to two aspects of the species' biology: Seed dispersal and pollinator foraging distances. Both of these discussions are revised in full and described in the “
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements (PCEs) such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the
When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are
In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential for Vandenberg monkeyflower from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the
Vandenberg monkeyflower only occurs in sandy openings (canopy gaps) within dominant vegetation consisting of Burton Mesa chaparral (see the “Background” section in the proposed listing rule published October 29, 2013 (78 FR 64840), in the
Canopy gaps are important for seed germination and seedling establishment, and for maintaining the seed banks of many chaparral species (Davis
Numerous studies have recognized canopy gaps in mature chaparral as important microhabitats where some subshrubs and herbs (such as Vandenberg monkeyflower) persist between fires (Horton and Kraebel 1955, pp. 258-261; Vogl and Schorr 1972, pp. 1182-1187; Keeley
When fire occurs, it clears out aboveground living vegetation and dead wood, deposits nutrient-rich ash, and makes space and sunlight available for seedling establishment. High numbers of herbaceous annuals and perennials appear shortly after fire has cleared away the tall, dense shrubs (Gevirtz
The gaps in the canopy where this species occurs consist of loose, sandy soils. The Burton Mesa dune sheet is comprised of layers of wind-blown sand, each of which was deposited during different geologic time periods. The oldest dune deposits are referred to as the Orcutt “paleodunes,” and were deposited in the Santa Maria Basin during the mid-Pleistocene era up to 200,000 years ago (Johnson 1983 in Hunt 1993, p. 14). These dunes are old enough to have developed a soil profile, classified as Tangair and Narlon soils (Soil Conservation Service 1972). Subsurface soils are typically hardened by iron oxides, though surface exposures, where they occur, are
These oldest dune deposits have been buried beneath more recent dunes that were wind-deposited approximately 10,000 to 25,000 to as much as 125,000 years ago (Orme and Tchakerian 1986, pp. 155-156; Johnson 1983, in Hunt 1993, p. 15). Contributing to the formation of these vast dune systems was a rapid fall in sea level approximately 18,000 years ago, perhaps as much as 300 ft (91 m) below the present shoreline, which exposed vast quantities of sediment that were later transported miles inland by onshore winds (Hunt 1993, p. 16).
The more recent dune deposits comprise the bulk of the dunes found on Burton Mesa. These newer dunes on Burton Mesa are composed of poorly consolidated to unconsolidated red to yellow sands with a clay-enriched B-horizon profile; the substratum is generally a dense, cemented sand layer (Hunt 1993 p. 16). This cemented layer may contribute to the water-holding capacity of the soil, which in turn affects the types of plants and vegetation communities observed. Additionally, both the older and newer dune deposits have substrates with significantly higher proportions of fine sands relative to even more recent sand deposits, thus forming a dense soil (Hunt 1993, p. 16). Topsoil in Burton Mesa is uniformly medium sand, but the depth of soil to bedrock varies throughout the mesa, and several soil types are present (Davis
This species appears more closely tied to loose, sandy soil than to a specific soil type. Therefore, because Vandenberg monkeyflower occurs on all soil types listed above, but appears to be more closely associated with loose, sandy soils regardless of the soil type, we identify loose, sandy soils on Burton Mesa as a physical or biological feature for Vandenberg monkeyflower.
The structure of the chaparral habitat on Burton Mesa is a mosaic of maritime chaparral vegetation (which includes maritime chaparral and maritime chaparral mixed with coastal scrub, oak woodland, and small patches of native grasslands (Wilken and Wardlaw 2010, p. 2)) and sandy openings (canopy gaps) that varies from place to place (see
Seeds of this species are small and light in weight and short-distance dispersal is achieved primarily by gravity but also by wind and water (Fraga
Contiguous chaparral habitat on Burton Mesa is important for population growth of Vandenberg monkeyflower because it also provides habitat for insect pollinators. Pollinators move pollen from one flower to another predominantly within the same plant population, but they can move pollen to another plant population if it is close enough and the pollinator is capable of carrying the pollen across that distance. Annual
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to identify the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' PCEs. Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history processes, we determine that the PCEs specific to Vandenberg monkeyflower are:
(1) Native maritime chaparral communities of Burton Mesa comprising maritime chaparral and maritime chaparral mixed with coastal scrub, oak woodland, and small patches of native grasslands. The mosaic structure of the native plant communities (arranged in a mosaic of dominant vegetation and sandy openings (canopy gaps)), may change spatially as a result of succession, and physical processes such as windblown sand and wildfire.
(2) Loose sandy soils on Burton Mesa. As mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), these could include the following soil series: Arnold Sand, Marina Sand, Narlon Sand, Tangair Sand, Botella Loam, Terrace Escarpments, and Gullied Land.
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. All areas designated as critical habitat contain features that will require some level of management to address the current and future threats. In all units, special management may be required to ensure that the habitat is able to provide for the growth and reproduction of the species.
The habitat where Vandenberg monkeyflower occurs faces threats from urban development, maintenance of existing utility pipelines, anthropogenic fire, unauthorized recreational activities, and most substantially the expansion of invasive, nonnative plants (see
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If, after identifying these specific areas, we determine the areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of the species, in accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we then consider whether designating additional areas outside of the geographic area occupied by the species are essential for the conservation of the species. We are not designating any areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by the species because its present range is sufficient to ensure the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower.
We used data from research published in peer-reviewed articles; reports and survey forms prepared for Federal, State, and local agencies and private corporations; site visits; regional Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layers, including soil and land use coverage; and data submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). We also reviewed available information that pertains to the ecology, life history, and habitat requirements of this species. This material included information and data in peer-reviewed articles, reports of monitoring and habitat characterizations, reports submitted during section 7 consultations, and information received from local experts regarding Burton Mesa or Vandenberg monkeyflower.
Determining specific areas that Vandenberg monkeyflower occupies is challenging because areas may be occupied by the species even if no plants appear above ground (
We used a multistep process to delineate critical habitat boundaries.
(1) Using Burton Mesa as a palette, we placed a minimum convex polygon around all nine extant occurrences and one potentially extirpated occurrence (Lower Santa Lucia Canyon) of Vandenberg monkeyflower based on CNDDB and herbarium records, as well as survey information not yet formalized in a database. This resulted in a data layer of Vandenberg monkeyflower's current and historical range on Burton Mesa (see “Distribution of Vandenberg Monkeyflower” section of the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840; October 29, 2013). We eliminated the occurrence noted in 1931 that was identified approximately 5 mi (8 km) downwind and to the east in the Santa Rita Valley because there is no suitable habitat remaining at this site; thus, we consider this occurrence to be extirpated (see “Historical Locations” section in the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840; October 29, 2013).
(2) We used GIS to overlay soil data (NRCS) across Burton Mesa, not excluding any soil types at this time because Vandenberg monkeyflower appears to be tied more closely to loose sandy soil than to a specific soil type. Therefore, to define suitable sandy soil where Vandenberg monkeyflower may occur, we included all soil types where the species is currently extant. These soil types include Arnold Sand, Marina Sand, Narlon Sand, Tangair Sand, Botella Loam, Terrace Escarpments, and Gullied Land. Additionally, we did not remove areas that comprise a small percentage of a different soil type if it was within a larger polygon of a suitable soil type because these areas were below the mapping resolution of the NRCS soil data we utilized.
(3) We expanded the distance from each extant occurrence and one potentially extirpated occurrence up to 1 mi (1.6 km) beyond the known outer edge of each occurrence of Vandenberg monkeyflower for the following reasons:
(a) We sought to maintain connectivity between occurrences of Vandenberg monkeyflower because seeds are primarily dispersed by gravity, along with wind, water, and small mammals. Habitat connectivity,
(b) A 1-mi (1.6-km) distance from each extant occurrence would provide adequate space for pollinator habitat. Vandenberg monkeyflower has a mixed mating system, and is dependent on pollinators to achieve seed production. As noted in the
Although Chesnut (
(c) Providing a critical habitat boundary that is 1 mi (1.6 km) from the nine extant occurrences and one potentially extirpated occurrence of Vandenberg monkeyflower captures most of the remaining native vegetation on Burton Mesa, from east of the developed area on Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) through La Purisima Mission State Historic Park (SHP) (see “Distribution of Vandenberg Monkeyflower” section of the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840)). In some instances, we expanded critical habitat farther than 1 mi (1.6 km) if the PCEs were contiguously present up-canyon. Expanding the boundary to 1 mi (1.6 km) created larger and contiguous blocks of suitable habitat, which have the highest likelihood of persisting through the environmental extremes that characterize California's climate, and of retaining the genetic variability to withstand future stressors (such as invasive, nonnative species or climate change). Additionally, contiguous blocks of habitat maintain connectivity, which is important because habitat fragmentation can result in loss of genetic variation (Young
(d) We considered a critical habitat boundary at a distance of 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from the nine extant locations and one potentially extirpated location. This shorter distance, however, did not maintain connectivity of occurrences, did not encompass the remaining native vegetation of Burton Mesa, and did not represent a sufficient distance to encompass long-distance seed dispersal or the distance that pollinators may travel. Except as described above in (c), we did not consider any distance larger than 1 mi (1.6 km) because the 1-mile distance captures the remaining native vegetation and the distribution of Vandenberg monkeyflower, and any distance greater than 1 mi (1.6 km) also captured habitat that is not suitable for this species. Therefore, the areas within our critical habitat boundaries include the range of plant communities and soil types in which Vandenberg monkeyflower is found, maintain connectivity of occurrences, and provide for the sandy openings mixed within the dominant vegetation. The delineated critical habitat contains the elements of physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species.
We did not include agricultural areas because, while the underlying dune sheet may be present depending on the land use practices, the topsoil would most likely not consist of loose sandy soil and the associated vegetation community would not exist. A few smaller agriculture and grazing plots exist within the Burton Mesa Ecological Reserve (Reserve), but agricultural lands mostly occur to the south and east of the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or biological features necessary for Vandenberg monkeyflower. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the unit descriptions section of this document. We will make
We are designating critical habitat on lands that we have determined are within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing (occupied at the time of listing) and contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection.
Four units are designated based on sufficient elements of physical or biological features being present to support Vandenberg monkeyflower life-history processes. All of the units contain all of the identified elements of physical or biological features and support multiple life-history processes.
We are designating four units as critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower, all of which are considered occupied. The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best assessment at this time of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. Those four units are: (1) Vandenberg, (2) Santa Lucia, (3) Encina, and (4) La Purisima (see Table 1 below). Table 1 lists the critical habitat units and the area of each.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower, below.
Unit 1 is within the geographical area occupied by Vandenberg monkeyflower at the time of listing and consists of 223 ac (90 ha). Unit 1 is located adjacent to and between two extant occurrences (Oak Canyon and Pine Canyon, which are located on Vandenberg AFB) and is known to support suitable habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower. Although Vandenberg monkeyflower plants are not currently present above-ground within this unit, the area harbors the PCEs, and is contiguous with and between Vandenberg AFB lands that are known to be occupied; thus, the area within the unit (and the adjacent, contiguous land on Vandenberg AFB) is considered to be within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. The adjacent land on Vandenberg AFB is essential to the conservation of the species; however, we are not designating Vandenberg AFB as critical habitat within this subunit because we have exempted Vandenberg AFB from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (see Exemptions section below).
Therefore, Unit 1 is composed entirely of Federal land (100 percent) exclusively owned and managed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and which contains the Lompoc Penitentiary. The unit consists of the westernmost portion of DOJ lands, from the Vandenberg AFB boundary line to roughly the break in slope at 100 ft (30 m) in elevation above the bottom slope of Santa Lucia Canyon. Unit 1 contains the appropriate vegetation structure of contiguous chaparral habitat with canopy gaps (PCE 1) and loose, sandy soils (PCE 2) that support Vandenberg monkeyflower. Unit 1 provides connectivity of habitat between occurrences, habitat for pollinators, and space for establishment of new plants from seeds that are dispersed from adjacent extant occurrences of Vandenberg monkeyflower.
The features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations or protection due to threats from invasion of nonnative plants. Ground disturbance within this unit could remove suitable habitat and create additional openings for nonnative plants to invade and degrade the quality of the habitat.
Unit 2 is within the geographical area occupied by Vandenberg monkeyflower at the time of listing, is currently occupied by the species, and consists of 1,484 ac (601 ha). This unit includes State lands (96 percent) within the Reserve, relatively small portions of local agency lands (for example, school districts, water districts, community services districts) (less than 1 percent) and private lands (3 percent). Unit 2 contains the appropriate vegetation structure of contiguous chaparral habitat with canopy gaps (PCE 1) and loose, sandy soils (PCE 2) that support Vandenberg monkeyflower. The eastern boundary of Vandenberg AFB delineates the western boundary of this unit. Unit 2 includes most of the Vandenberg and Santa Lucia Management Units of the Reserve. Unit 2 extends from Purisima Hills at the northern extent through the width of Burton Mesa to the agricultural lands south of the Reserve, and to the eastern boundary of the Vandenberg and Santa Lucia Management Units where these units abut Vandenberg Village.
Unit 2 supports one extant occurrence (Volans Avenue) and one potentially extirpated occurrence (Lower Santa Lucia Canyon) of Vandenberg monkeyflower. Between 2006 and 2011, the Volans Avenue occurrence has consisted of no more than 25 individuals; the potentially extirpated occurrence was last observed in 1985 (see the “Distribution of Vandenberg Monkeyflower—Historical Locations” section of the proposed listing rule (78
The features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations or protection due to threats from invasion of nonnative plants, and activities such as utility maintenance, and off-road vehicle and casual recreational uses. These activities could remove suitable habitat and Vandenberg monkeyflower individuals, and create additional openings for nonnative plants to invade and degrade the quality of the habitat.
Unit 3 is within the geographical area occupied by Vandenberg monkeyflower at the time of listing and consists of 2,024 ac (819 ha). This unit contains State-owned lands (72 percent), including most of the Encina Management Unit of the Reserve, local agency lands (1.2 percent), and privately owned lands such as areas adjacent to the Clubhouse Estates residential development (27 percent) (see Table 1 above). Unit 3 contains the appropriate vegetation structure of contiguous chaparral habitat with canopy gaps (PCE 1) and loose, sandy soils (PCE 2) that support Vandenberg monkeyflower. Unit 3 extends from approximately the Purisima Hills to the north, through the Reserve and to the agricultural lands just south of the Reserve boundary, and is between Vandenberg Village and State Route 1 to the east and the residential communities of Mesa Oaks and Mission Hills to the west. Unit 3 supports two extant occurrences of Vandenberg monkeyflower (Clubhouse Estates and Davis Creek). Between 2006 and 2011, hundreds of individuals have been observed on more than one occasion at each of these occurrences (see “Current Status of Vandenberg Monkeyflower” section of the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840; October 29, 2013). Unit 3 provides connectivity of habitat between occurrences within this unit, habitat for pollinators, space for establishment of seeds blown from upwind seed sources, and space for establishment of new plants from seeds that are dispersed from existing Vandenberg monkeyflower plants within the unit.
The features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations or protection due to threats from invasion of nonnative plants, development, utility maintenance, and off-road vehicle and casual recreational uses (including bicycling). These activities could remove suitable habitat and Vandenberg monkeyflower individuals, result in trampling of individual plants, and create additional openings for nonnatives to invade and degrade the quality of the habitat.
Unit 4 is within the geographical area occupied by Vandenberg monkeyflower at the time of listing and consists of 2,024 ac (819 ha). Unit 4 contains mostly State-owned lands (89 percent) consisting of most of La Purisima Mission SHP and a small portion of the La Purisima Management Unit of the Reserve that is north of La Purisima Mission SHP. This unit also contains private land to the east of La Purisima Mission SHP (11 percent), and a small portion of local agency lands (less than 1 percent) (see Table 1 above). Unit 4 contains the appropriate vegetation structure of contiguous chaparral habitat with canopy gaps (PCE 1) and loose, sandy soils (PCE 2) that support Vandenberg monkeyflower. This unit extends approximately from the Purisima Hills in the north to the southern boundary of La Purisima Mission SHP, and between the residential communities of Mesa Oaks and Mission Hills to the west and to just east of, and outside, the State Park's eastern boundary. Unit 4 supports two extant occurrences of Vandenberg monkeyflower in La Purisima Mission SHP (La Purisima East and La Purisima West). Between 2006 and 2011, more than 2,000 individuals of Vandenberg monkeyflower have been observed among the sites on both the east and west side of Purisima Canyon (see “Current Status of Vandenberg Monkeyflower” section of the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840; Otober 29, 2013). This unit provides connectivity of habitat between occurrences within this unit, habitat for pollinators, space for establishment of seeds blown from upwind seed sources, and space for establishment of new plants from seeds that are dispersed from existing Vandenberg monkeyflower plants within the unit.
The features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations or protection due to threats from invasion of nonnative plants that could reduce the amount and quality of suitable habitat.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” (50 CFR 402.02) (see
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in consultation for Vandenberg monkeyflower. These activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would lead to the destruction or alteration of Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, development, road and utility repairs and maintenance, anthropogenic fires, and some casual recreational uses. These activities could lead to loss of habitat; removal of the seed bank; introduction and proliferation of invasive, nonnative plants; reduction of pollinators; and habitat fragmentation.
(2) Actions that create ground disturbance and would lead to significant invasive, nonnative plant competition. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, any activity that results in ground disturbance and creates additional open areas for invasive, nonnative plants to invade Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat. Invasive, nonnative plants quickly establish in disturbed areas and outcompete native vegetation, including Vandenberg monkeyflower in the sandy openings (see
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) required each military installation that includes land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to complete an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) by November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: “The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.”
We consult with the military on the development and implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs developed by military installations located within the range of the critical habitat designation for Vandenberg monkeyflower to determine if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of Defense lands with completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the area that meets the definition of critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower.
Vandenberg AFB has a Service-approved INRMP. The U.S. Air Force (on Vandenberg AFB) committed to working closely with us and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to continually refine the existing INRMP as part of the Sikes Act's INRMP review process. Based on our review of the INRMP for this military installation, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we
Vandenberg AFB is headquarters for the 30th Space Wing, the Air Force's Space Command unit that operates Vandenberg AFB and the Western Test Range and Pacific Missile Range. Vandenberg AFB operates as an aerospace center supporting west coast launch activities for the Air Force, Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and commercial contractors. The three primary operational missions of Vandenberg AFB are to launch, place, and track satellites in near-polar orbit; to test and evaluate the Intercontinental ballistic missile systems; and to support aircraft operations in the western range. Vandenberg AFB lies on the south-central California coast, approximately 275 mi (442 km) south of San Francisco, 140 mi (225 km) northwest of Los Angeles, and 55 mi (88 km) northwest of Santa Barbara. The 99,100-ac (40,104-ha) base extends along approximately 42 mi (67 km) of Santa Barbara County coast, and varies in width from 5 to 15 mi (8 to 24 km).
The Vandenberg AFB INRMP was prepared to provide strategic direction to ecosystem and natural resources management on the Base. The long-term goal of the INRMP is to integrate all management activities in a manner that sustains, promotes, and restores the health and integrity of ecosystems using an adaptive management approach. The INRMP was designed to: (1) Summarize existing management plans and natural resources literature pertaining to Vandenberg AFB, (2) identify and analyze management goals in existing plans, (3) integrate the management goals and objectives of individual plans, (4) support Base compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, (5) support the integration of natural resource stewardship with the Air Force mission, and (6) provide direction for monitoring strategies.
Vandenberg AFB completed an INRMP in May 2011 (Air Force 2011c). The INRMP includes chapters that identify invasive, nonnative plants on the Base as well as step-down goals for the management of threatened and endangered species on the Base. However, since Vandenberg monkeyflower was not a listed species at that time, specific goals for this plant were not included. In 2012, the Air Force approved an addendum to the May 2011 INRMP that addresses specific goals for Vandenberg monkeyflower (Air Force 2012). Management considerations that provide a conservation benefit to Vandenberg monkeyflower in the addendum are:
(1) Avoiding Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat to the maximum extent practicable by relocating and redesigning proposed projects, and using biological monitors during project activities.
(2) Conducting nonnative species control efforts that target veldt grass across Vandenberg AFB. The Air Force has programmed more than $500,000 to treat veldt grass, with funding that started in 2009 and would continue through 2019.
(3) Training Base personnel in the identification of sensitive species and their habitats, including Vandenberg monkeyflower, prior to implementing nonnative species control actions.
(4) Implementing a fire response program, such as a Burned Area Emergency Response project, which includes post-fire monitoring, habitat restoration, erosion control, and nonnative species management.
(5) Developing a controlled burning program that would include portions of Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat.
(6) Conducting habitat and threat assessments to help decide the best approach for restoration actions.
(7) Periodic surveys of Vandenberg monkeyflower populations on the Base.
Vandenberg AFB supports four extant occurrences of Vandenberg monkeyflower located in Oak, Pine, Lakes, and Santa Lucia Canyons. Between 2006 and 2011, these four locations contained multiple occurrences; in 2010 specifically, more than 5,000 individuals were observed amongst all occurrences (see “Occurrences Located on Vandenberg AFB” section of the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840; October 29, 2013)). Vandenberg AFB provides approximately half of the available suitable habitat (Burton Mesa chaparral) for Vandenberg monkeyflower and has four out of nine extant occurrences.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands are subject to the Vandenberg AFB INRMP and addendum, and the conservation efforts identified in the INRMP addendum will provide a benefit to Vandenberg monkeyflower. Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. We are not including approximately 4,159 ac (1,683 ha) of habitat in this final critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis, which, together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, constitute our DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (IEc 2014, entire). The analysis, dated March 19, 2014, was made available for public review from May 6, 2014, through June 5, 2014 (IEc 2014, entire) (79 FR 25797). The DEA addressed potential economic impacts of critical habitat designation for Vandenberg monkeyflower. Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic
Critical habitat designation for Vandenberg monkeyflower is unlikely to generate combined direct and indirect costs exceeding $100 million in a single year. Data limitations prevent the quantification of critical habitat benefits (IEc 2014, pp. 3, 22, 24).
All critical habitat units are considered occupied. However, Vandenberg monkeyflower is an annual plant that may only be expressed above ground once a year or even less frequently (Service 2014, p. 15). Even though all units contain Vandenberg monkeyflower seed banks below ground, some project proponents may not be aware of the presence of the species absent a critical habitat designation. The characteristics of the plant make it difficult to determine whether future consultations will result from the presence of the listed species or designated critical habitat.
Throughout our analysis (IEc, 2014, entire), we have considered two scenarios:
(1)
(2)
Projects with a Federal nexus within Vandenberg monkeyflower critical habitat are likely to be rare. We project fewer than three projects annually, associated with the Lompoc Penitentiary, the existing oil pipeline and utilities running through the Reserve, and road projects using Federal funding (IEc 2014, pp. 3, 12). In the high-end scenario, costs in a single year are likely to be on the order of magnitude of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars (IEc 2014, pp. 3, 12). In the low-end scenario, assuming above-ground expression of the monkeyflower, total costs in a single year will likely be less than $100,000.
The potential exists for critical habitat to trigger additional requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In the low-end scenario, impacts at all sites except the Burton Ranch Specific Plan area would be attributed to listing Vandenberg monkeyflower. In the high-end scenario, properties that could experience relatively larger impacts include the Burton Ranch Specific Plan area (Unit 3), potentially developable parcels along the northern border of Vandenberg Village (Units 2 and 3), the Freeport-McMoRan Inc., parcels overlapping the State-designated Lompoc Oil Field (Units 2 and 3), and preferred sites for new drinking water wells in the Reserve (Unit 3). Given the value of possible impacts in these areas, we conclude that designating critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower will not generate combined direct and indirect costs that exceed $100 million in a single year (
The changes to Units 1 and 3 described in this final rule do not modify the results of the screening analysis. Additional information and discussion regarding our economic analysis is available in our screening analysis and IEM (IEc 2014, entire; Service 2014, entire) available on the Internet at
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the Vandenberg monkeyflower based on economic impacts.
A copy of the screening analysis with supporting documents may be obtained by contacting the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we have determined that no lands within the designation of critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower are owned or managed by the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security. Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on impacts on national security or homeland security.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider any other relevant impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat. We consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any tribal issues and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the designation.
There are currently two management plans in existence for State lands at the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP. We considered for exclusion State lands at the Reserve (3,132 ac (1,268 ha) at the Reserve) and at La Purisima Mission SHP (1,542 ac (624 ha) at La Purisima Mission SHP), which together account for approximately 81 percent of the critical habitat designation. For Vandenberg monkeyflower, we considered the following criteria for our exclusion analysis: (1) If the plan was complete and provided a conservation benefit for the species and its habitat; (2) if there was a reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and actions would be implemented into the future, based on past practices, written guidance, or regulations; and (3) if the plan provided conservation strategies and measures consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
We did not exclude these areas from this final designation because: (1) These lands contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower; (2) the State has developed general management plans for the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP that support a conservation strategy consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology and that may provide a benefit to Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat; however, these plans are general in nature and do not contain specific management goals for Vandenberg monkeyflower; and (3) we are concerned whether adequate resources (
In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are currently no permitted HCPs or other management plans for Vandenberg monkeyflower beyond those two identified above, and the final designation does not include any tribal lands or tribal trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on other relevant impacts.
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed designation of critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower during two comment periods. The first comment period associated with the publication of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat (78 FR 64446) opened on October 29, 2013, and closed on December 30, 2013. We also requested comments on the proposed critical habitat designation and associated DEA during a comment period that opened May 6, 2014, and closed on June 5, 2014 (79 FR 25797). We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule and DEA during these comment periods. We received State comments from the CDFW regarding the Reserve, but received none from State Parks regarding La Purisima Mission SHP.
During the first comment period, we received seven comment letters directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During the second comment period, we received six comment letters addressing the proposed critical habitat designation or the DEA. All substantive information provided during comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below. Comments we received are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology principles. Our request included peer review of both the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840) and proposed critical habitat rule (78 FR 64446). Although we received responses from all three peer reviewers on the proposed listing rule, only two commented specifically on the proposed critical habitat rule. We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Specific recovery objectives and criteria to delist Vandenberg monkeyflower in the future will be developed during the formal recovery planning process. This process will involve species experts, scientists, and interested members of the public, in accordance with the interagency policy on recovery plans under the Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272). We anticipate that recovery objectives and criteria for Vandenberg monkeyflower will focus on
For State lands included in the critical habitat designation (
In summary, the designation of critical habitat requires Federal agencies not to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, but does not impose any additional regulations or prohibitions beyond those described above on the current management that the State agencies administer at the Reserve or La Purisima Mission SHP, or that private landowners impose on their lands.
Regarding educating the public on the sensitivity of the chaparral habitat, in the case of Vandenberg monkeyflower, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of Vandenberg monkeyflower, the importance of habitat protection, and in cases where a Federal nexus exists, the potential for greater habitat protection for the species due to the legally binding duty of Federal agencies to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (see
With respect to the biological impacts that mountain bikes may have to sensitive resources, we note that the commenter did not provide information regarding studies on biking and hiking impacts. Nevertheless, in our proposed rule to list Vandenberg monkeyflower as an endangered species (78 FR 64840), we discuss threats to this species and its habitat from recreational activities (see
Restrictions on mountain bike use are a result of State direction as opposed to a restriction associated though a critical habitat designation. Specifically, for State lands included in the critical habitat designation, mountain-biking is prohibited at the Reserve, and is restricted to authorized roads and trails
In the case of Vandenberg monkeyflower, we are designating critical habitat under the first prong of the Act because we determined that the area that is within the geographic range of the species contains the physical or biological features that are essential to Vandenberg monkeyflower and would be adequate for the conservation of the species. In addition, habitat that is essential to Vandenberg monkeyflower occurs on Vandenberg AFB; however, we did not designate critical habitat on Vandenberg AFB because the Air Force has an approved INRMP, which provides a conservation benefit to Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat, and thus the Air Force is exempt from critical habitat per section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. Finally, we note that the commenter did not include reference to any particular area in which they were concerned.
For both the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP, the commenter is correct in that the general management plans are not implemented specifically to protect Vandenberg monkeyflower. Both the general management plans address the above criteria to some degree for exclusion of lands from critical habitat designation; for instance, they support a conservation strategy consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology that would provide a benefit to Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat. However, based on conversations with staff at the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP, we have concerns whether the resources will be available to adequately implement these plans to protect Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat into the future. Therefore, because these lands meet the definition of critical habitat and contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and we have concerns regarding the implementation of the management plans in the future, we have not excluded the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP in the final critical habitat designation (see
Combined with the criteria used to identify critical habitat, we evaluated the best available information and used the best scientific data available. Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history processes, we determined that the structure of the maritime chaparral habitat and loose sandy soils are appropriate PCEs for Vandenberg monkeyflower (see
For example, appropriate soil types are present throughout the areas with invasive, nonnatives present, and it is probable that pollinators and seed dispersers traverse areas consisting of nonnative plants adjacent to and in between Vandenberg monkeyflower populations (see
We also reviewed Soons
It was important for us to take these fragmented areas on Burton Mesa into consideration due to the threats that have caused and continue to cause habitat fragmentation throughout the final critical habitat designation and the needs of this species requiring contiguous chaparral habitat (see
With regard to the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP, the purpose of the Reserve is to manage, operate, and maintain the sovereign lands for the sensitive species and habitats they support (Gevirtz
With regard to the Burton Ranch project site and specifically the Burton Ranch Development Plan, we note that up to approximately 83 out of 93 ac (34 out of 38 ha, or approximately 90 percent) of Burton Mesa chaparral is proposed to be impacted. With the estimated effect to chaparral on Burton Ranch, the conservation strategy outlined for the Burton Ranch Development Plan would not be adequate to protect the species and its remaining habitat in this area. Therefore, we did not consider Burton Ranch for exclusion from critical habitat based on other relevant impacts under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. However, we appreciate that the owners of Burton Ranch proposed to maintain a buffer between development and the Reserve to minimize effects to the chaparral habitat within the Reserve, including areas containing Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat. We also appreciate that Burton Ranch completed a conservation easement with the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County to protect 95 ac (38 ha) off-site of Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat that features Burton Mesa chaparral, coastal scrub, and oak savannah habitat.
If these land management plans are changed or updated, section 7 consultation with the Service is unlikely because a Federal nexus does not exist. Hence, it is unlikely that the designation of critical habitat would limit the recreational activities that are allowed in the Reserve and the La Purisima Mission SHP. To the extent that biking or other recreational activities occur on private lands, a Federal nexus requiring consultation with the Service is also unlikely. Therefore, it is unlikely that this designation of critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower will have a significant effect on use of the areas designated for bicycling.
At this time, we have not received any information indicating there is a Federal nexus for the construction of new water wells within the VVCSD. Without such a nexus, potential future construction of water wells would not require section 7 consultation (see also our response to
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself, and therefore, not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the Agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our certification that this final critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared to not taking the regulatory action under consideration.
Based on information in the economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated with Vandenberg monkeyflower conservation activities within critical habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(1) This 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 tribal 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 tribal 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; Aid to Families with Dependent Children 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.”
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Our economic analysis concludes that the economic costs of implementing the rule through section 7 of the Act will most likely be limited to the additional administrative effort required to consider adverse modification. This finding is based on the following factors:
(a) All units are considered occupied, providing baseline protection;
(b) Activities occurring within designated critical habitat with a potential to affect critical habitat are also likely to adversely affect the species, either directly or indirectly; and
(c) In occupied habitat, project modifications requested to avoid adverse modification are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid jeopardy.
Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower in a takings implications assessment. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although private parties that receive Federal funding, assistance, or require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Our DEA found (and our FEA reaffirms) that no significant economic impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower. Because the Act's critical habitat protection requirements apply only to Federal agency actions, few conflicts between critical habitat and private property rights should result from this designation. Based on information contained in the DEA and described within this document, it is not likely that economic impacts to a property owner would be of a sufficient magnitude to support a takings action. Therefore, the takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower does not pose significant takings implications.
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies in California. We received comments from the State of California (CDFW, who manages the Reserve) but did not receive comments from State Parks (La Purisima Mission SHP), in response to our request for information on the proposed rule. However, we verbally discussed this critical habitat rule with State Parks staff. From a federalism perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical and biological features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist these local governments in long-range planning (because these local governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower. The designated areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if desired.
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
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 tribal lands occupied by Vandenberg monkeyflower at the time of listing that contain the physical or biological features essential to conservation of the species, and there are no tribal lands not occupied by Vandenberg monkeyflower that are essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower on tribal lands.
A complete list of all references cited is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the Pacific Southwest Regional Office and Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office.
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.
(h) * * *
Family Phrymaceae:
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Santa Barbara County, California, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower consist of two components:
(i) Native maritime chaparral communities of Burton Mesa comprising maritime chaparral and maritime chaparral mixed with coastal scrub, oak woodland, and small patches of native grasslands. The mosaic structure of the native plant communities (arranged in a mosaic of dominant vegetation and sandy openings (canopy gaps)) may change spatially as a result of succession, and physical processes such as windblown sand and wildfire.
(ii) Loose sandy soils on Burton Mesa. As mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), these could include the following soil series: Arnold Sand, Marina Sand, Narlon Sand, Tangair Sand, Botella Loam, Terrace Escarpments, and Gullied Land.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on September 10, 2015.
(4)
(5) Index map follows:
(6) Unit 1 (Vandenberg) and Unit 2 (Santa Lucia): Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) Unit 1 includes 223 ac (90 ha), and Unit 2 includes 1,484 ac (601 ha).
(ii) Map of Units 1 and 2 follows:
(7) Unit 3 (Encina) and Unit 4 (La Purisima): Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) Unit 3 includes 2,024 ac (819 ha), and Unit 4 includes 2,024 ac (819 ha).
(ii) Map of Units 3 and 4 follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS is proposing to revise its regulations to implement the import provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). These proposed regulations would establish conditions for evaluating a harvesting nation's regulatory program for reducing marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury in fisheries that export fish and fish products to the United States. Under this proposed rule, harvesting nations must apply for and receive a comparability finding for each fishery identified by the Assistant Administrator in the List of Foreign Fisheries in order to import fish and fish products into the United States. The proposed rule establishes procedures that a harvesting nation must follow, and conditions to meet, to receive a comparability finding for a fishery. The proposed rule also establishes procedures for intermediary nations to certify that exports from those nations to the United States do not contain fish or fish products subject to an import prohibition. Agency actions and recommendations under this rule will be in accordance with U.S. obligations under applicable international trade law, including the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement.
Written comments must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 9, 2015. Information and comments concerning this proposed rule may be submitted by any one of several methods (see
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2010-0098, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
NMFS prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to accompany this proposed rule and will consider comments on the EA submitted in response to this notice. The EA was developed as an integrated document that includes a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). Copies of the proposed rule and draft EA/RIR/IRFA analysis are available by writing to the mailing address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see
Nina Young, NMFS F/IA at
The U.S. Ocean Commission stated in its 2005 report that the “biggest threat to marine mammals worldwide is their accidental capture or entanglement in fishing gear (bycatch), which kills hundreds of thousands of them each year.” Scientists estimate the global annual bycatch of marine mammals at more than 600,000 animals. The MMPA contains provisions to address the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in both domestic and foreign commercial fisheries. With respect to foreign fisheries, section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA states that the Secretary of the Treasury shall ban the importation of commercial fish or products from fish which have been caught with commercial fishing technology which results in the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of ocean mammals in excess of United States standards. For purposes of applying the preceding sentence, the Secretary of Commerce shall insist on reasonable proof from the government of any nation from which fish or fish products will be exported to the United States of the effects on ocean mammals of the commercial fishing technology in use for such fish or fish products exported from such nation to the United States. (see 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)) Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, section 101(a)(2) was implemented by regulations under 50 CFR 216.24(e) and was tied to standards governing U.S. fisheries under general permits. In 1994, Congress reauthorized the MMPA and created a regime for governing the incidental take of marine mammals in U.S. commercial fisheries (16 U.S.C. 1387). This regime replaced the general permit thereby rendering those regulations obsolete and narrowing their focus to fish and fish products caught with driftnets (50 CFR 216.24(e)) (See EA for details on the regulatory history).
Section 102(c)(3) of the MMPA states that it is unlawful to import into the United States any fish, whether fresh, frozen, or otherwise prepared, if such fish was caught in a manner which the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) has proscribed for persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not any marine mammals were in fact taken incident to the catching of the fish. (see 16 U.S.C. 1372(c)(3)). Section 102(c)(3) is implemented by regulations under 50 CFR 216.12(d). This section among other provisions implements the MMPA's prohibition on the intentional killing or serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing, under 16 U.S.C. 1378.
Since the MMPA was first passed in 1972, one of its goals has been that the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of marine mammals permitted in the course of [U.S.] commercial fishing operations be reduced to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and injury rate. (see 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)).
The MMPA establishes a moratorium on taking marine mammals (with limited exceptions) within U.S. waters or by persons or vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction on the high seas or in waters of another nation seaward of its territorial sea (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)), where “take” means to “harass, hunt, capture, or kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal” (16 U.S.C. 1362(13)). The MMPA originally prohibited the incidental take of marine mammals in U.S. commercial fisheries unless authorized by a general permit. In U.S. commercial fisheries, optimum sustainable population (OSP) had been the standard used to issue a general permit authorizing such incidental take. General permits could not be issued for the take of marine mammals from a population that was determined to be below its OSP level. Internationally, nations could not export fish to the United States if caught in a manner that would not be allowed by a general permit (45 FR 72194, October 31, 1980).
In January 1988, NMFS announced its intention to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed reissuance of domestic general permits authorizing commercial fishers to take marine mammals incidental to commercial fisheries (53 FR 2069, January 26, 1988). In preparing the draft EIS, NMFS determined that it had insufficient information to determine OSP levels for the majority of marine mammal stocks taken in U.S. commercial fisheries. Subsequently, a legal challenge to an MMPA general permit resulted in a court order that NMFS could not issue a general permit to incidentally take any population that is below its OSP level or for which NMFS could not calculate OSP. See
In November 1988, Congress provided a five-year interim exemption to the commercial fisheries incidental take provision to allow fishing to continue yet minimize the harm it caused marine mammals. This exemption allowed NMFS time to develop a comprehensive regime governing commercial fisheries interactions with marine mammals and alternative standards to OSP (16 U.S.C. 1383a). The MMPA Interim Exemption Program (Interim Exemption) required fishers to participate in a data-gathering program by carrying mandatory observers, compiling log books, and reporting marine mammal interactions in return for a temporary exemption from the moratorium on incidental take (16 U.S.C. 1383a). Under the Interim Exemption, Congress also required the Secretary of Commerce to place commercial fishing operations into one of three categories based on the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals and to publish an annual list of fisheries by category (16 U.S.C. 1383a(b)).
In 1994, the MMPA was amended to add sections 117 and 118 (16 U.S.C. 1386 and 1387, respectively), which established the current U.S. standards governing the incidental take of marine mammals in commercial fisheries. These amendments established a new metric: Potential Biological Removal (PBR). PBR is defined as “the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population” (16 U.S.C. 1362(20)).
With this change in the MMPA, incidental take authorizations and regulations to reduce incidental take in commercial fisheries became linked to PBR, which could be readily calculated for marine mammal stocks. The 1994 amendments reaffirmed the original goal of the MMPA to reduce the incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations to insignificant levels approaching zero. To more clearly delineate this goal, NMFS later issued regulations (50 CFR 229.2) to define this “insignificance threshold” as 10% of a stock's PBR level. Therefore, with these amendments, MMPA section 118(f)(2) sets two goals. The short-term goal is to reduce and maintain incidental mortality and serious injury below the PBR of a stock. The long-term goal is to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury “to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate” (
The 1994 amendments to the MMPA maintained the requirement for categorizing commercial fisheries into three groups based on frequency of interactions with marine mammals (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)). Category I includes fisheries that have frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Category II includes fisheries that have occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Category III includes fisheries that have a remote likelihood of, or no known, incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Numerical criteria for placing fisheries into these categories were eventually developed using the PBR standard (50 CFR 229.2).
Today, sections 117 and 118 of the MMPA comprise the U.S. standards for regulating incidental mortality and serious injury in domestic commercial fisheries, including (1) evaluating marine mammal stock status; (2) evaluating the levels of incidental mortality and serious injury in commercial fisheries by placing observers on vessels, reporting requirements, and other means; (3) developing take reduction plans and regulations to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals below each stock's PBR level and, ultimately, to insignificant levels approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate, following consultation with stakeholder-based take reduction teams; and (4) implementing emergency regulations when necessary. However, regulations implementing the MMPA's import provisions at section 101(a)(2) were never modified to codify these new U.S. standards. Instead the regulatory focus was narrowed to govern imports of yellowfin tuna and fish products caught with driftnets.
On March 5, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce and other relevant Departments were petitioned under the MMPA to ban the imports of swordfish and swordfish products from nations that have failed to provide reasonable proof of the effects on ocean mammals of the commercial fishing technology in use to catch swordfish. The petition was submitted by two nongovernmental organizations, the Center for Biological Diversity and Turtle Island Restoration Network. The petition is available at the following Web site:
On December 15, 2008, NMFS published a notice of receipt of the petition in the
On April 30, 2010, NMFS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) describing options to develop procedures to implement the import provisions of MMPA section 101(a)(2) (75 FR 22731). On July 1, 2010, NMFS extended the comment period for an additional 60 days (75 FR 38070).
Although the petition requested specific action regarding imports of swordfish and swordfish products, the import provisions of the MMPA apply more broadly to imports from other foreign fisheries that use “commercial fishing technology which results in the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of ocean mammals in excess of U.S. standards.” Additionally, on October 5, 2011, and on March 13, 2012, NOAA received correspondence from 21 animal rights and animal welfare organizations and Save Our Seals Fund, respectively, urging it to take action to ban the importation of Canadian and Scottish aquaculture farmed salmon into the United States due to the intentional killing of seals which is prohibited under the MMPA sections 101(a)(2), 102(c)(3) for international fisheries, and 118(a)(5) for domestic fisheries. NOAA decided that the proposed rule would be broader in scope than the 2008 petition and is not limited in application to swordfish fisheries.
NMFS is proposing to amend 50 CFR 216.24 to add a new section to establish procedures and conditions for evaluating a harvesting nation's regulatory program for reducing marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury in its export fisheries, to determine whether it is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program. However, it is not proposing to amend any other section within 50 CFR 216.24, including the regulations on importing fish products taken in high seas driftnet fisheries or in eastern tropical Pacific yellowfin tuna purse seine fisheries. Dolphin (family Delphinidae) incidental mortality and serious injury in eastern tropical Pacific yellowfin tuna purse seine fisheries are covered by section 101(a)(2)(B) and Title III of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)(B) and 16 U.S.C. 1411-1417), implemented in 50 CFR 216.24(a)-(g), and are not addressed in this proposed rule. Likewise, section 101(a)(2)(F) (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)(F)) of the MMPA and its implementing regulations cover marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury from high seas driftnet fisheries and are not addressed in this proposed rule.
To implement section 101(a)(2) and 102(c)(3) of the MMPA, NMFS is proposing a procedural approach similar to the regulations implementing the affirmative finding process for importing yellowfin tuna caught with purse seine vessels in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (51 FR 28963, August 13, 1986). Section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA only pertains to incidental serious injury and mortality to marine mammals from commercial fishing operations that export the fish product to the United States and does not apply to a foreign nation's non-exporting fisheries or other sources of non-fishery human-caused incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals.
Consistent with this approach, NMFS is proposing to define “Fish and Fish Products” for the purposes of this proposed rule as any marine finfish, mollusk, crustacean, or other form of marine life other than marine mammals, reptiles, and birds, whether fresh, frozen, canned, pouched, or otherwise prepared in a manner that allows species identification, but does not include fish oil, slurry, sauces, sticks, balls, cakes, and pudding and other similar highly processed fish products. NMFS is proposing to exclude fish oil, slurry, sauces, sticks, balls, cakes, pudding and other similar highly processed fish products from the requirements of the proposed rule as these represent processed product which cannot be tracked back to one species of fish or a specific commercial fishing operation. Instead NMFS will track Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes (
NMFS is also proposing to define “harvesting nation” as the country under whose flag or jurisdiction one or more fishing vessels or other entity engaged in commercial fishing operations are documented, or which has by formal declaration or agreement asserted jurisdiction over one or more authorized or certified charter vessels, and from such vessel(s) or entity(ies) fish are caught or harvested that are a part of any cargo or shipment of fish to be imported into the United States, regardless of any intervening transshipments, exports or re-exports. By this definition NMFS clarifies that the government or “harvesting nation” is the sovereign nation responsible for regulating its exempt and export fisheries, providing all necessary documentation proposed to be required by this rule and consulting with the Assistant Administrator on the subject fisheries. A harvesting nation's exempt and export fisheries include commercial fishing operations from a nation's flag vessels conducted on the high seas and in another coastal state's exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and all vessels, persons, and operations within a nation's EEZ and territorial sea.
This section provides an overview of the proposed process for implementing MMPA sections 101(a)(2)(A) and 102(c)(3). Each step is discussed in more detail in subsequent sections of this rule. NMFS will identify harvesting nations with commercial fishing operations that export fish and fish products to the United States and classify those fisheries based on their frequency of marine mammal interactions as either “exempt” or “export” fisheries (See section entitled “List of Foreign Fisheries” for definitions of exempt and export fisheries).
NMFS will publish in the
NMFS will allow a one-time only, initial five-year exemption period, similar to the Interim Exemption for domestic fisheries, commencing from the effective date of the final rule implementing these regulations. During the exemption period, the prohibitions of this rule will not apply with respect to imports from the harvesting nation. This exemption period is necessary to allow harvesting nations sufficient time to develop regulatory programs to comply with the requirements to obtain a comparability finding, which are described below. By the end of the exemption period and every four years thereafter, a harvesting nation must
To receive a comparability finding for a fishery operating within the harvesting nation's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and territorial sea, the harvesting nation must demonstrate it has prohibited the intentional mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations in an exempt and export fishery unless the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal is imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in immediate danger; or that it has procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products to the United States are not the product of an intentional killing or serious injury of a marine mammal unless the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal is imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in immediate danger. The harvesting nation must also demonstrate that it has adopted and implemented, with respect to an export fishery, a regulatory program governing the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of fishing operations in its export fishery that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program. The U.S. regulatory program governing the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations is specified at 16 U.S.C. 1386 and 1387, and also includes other regulatory requirements under the MMPA that regulate interactions of commercial fishing with marine mammals. The regulations implementing these provisions constitute the U.S. regulatory program. The conditions that constitute a harvesting nation's regulatory program for the Assistant Administrator to find it comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program are discussed below in more detail, including the conditions for harvesting nations with fisheries operating on the high seas and in another coastal state.
NMFS is not proposing to require that a harvesting nation match every aspect of the U.S. regulatory program to obtain a comparability finding for an export fishery. Instead, the conditions allow for flexibility in granting a comparability finding to programs that effectively achieve comparable results to the U.S. regulatory program even where they use different mechanisms to do so.
In the event that an exempt or export fishery fails to receive a comparability finding from the Assistant Administrator, importation of fish and fish products from that fishery into the United States will be prohibited under sections 101(a)(2) or 102(c)(3) of the MMPA until the harvesting nation reapplies and receives a comparability finding for that fishery.
Throughout this process, NMFS will engage in consultations with harvesting nations. Contingent on annual appropriations, NMFS may work with harvesting nations to assist with the design of marine mammal assessments and incidental mortality and serious injury mitigation programs.
To review the ongoing progress in the development and implementation of the harvesting nation's regulatory program for its export fisheries, NMFS will require progress reports every four years. The proposed rule also contains provisions regarding intermediary nations. For an intermediary nation to export fish and fish products to the United States, the proposed rule calls for any intermediary nation to demonstrate that it does not import, or does not offer for import into the United States, fish or fish products subject to an import prohibition; or it has procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products from the intermediary to the United States do not contain fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition. In the event that fish and fish products from a fishery are prohibited, NMFS has included provisions for an individual shipment certification of admissibility that will allow the importation of similar fish and fish products from a harvesting nation's fisheries that received comparability findings.
NMFS proposes to classify foreign commercial fishing operations exporting fish and fish products to the United States as either an “exempt fishery” or “export fishery” based on the reliable information provided by the harvesting nation.
NMFS defines “exempt fishery” as a foreign commercial fishing operation determined by the Assistant Administrator to be the source of exports of commercial fish and fish products to the United States and to have a remote likelihood of, or no known, incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations. A commercial fishing operation that has a remote likelihood of causing incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals is one that collectively with other foreign fisheries exporting fish and fish products to the United States causes the annual removal of:
(1) Ten percent or less of any marine mammal stock's bycatch limit, or
(2) More than 10 percent of any marine mammal stock's bycatch limit, yet that fishery by itself removes 1 percent or less of that stock's bycatch limit annually, or
(3) Where reliable information has not been provided by the harvesting nation on the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals caused by the commercial fishing operation, the Assistant Administrator may determine whether the likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury is “remote” by evaluating information concerning factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or other factors at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator. A foreign fishery will not be classified as an exempt fishery unless the Assistant Administrator has reliable information from the harvesting nation, or other information to support such a finding.
Exempt fisheries are considered to be equivalent to Category III fisheries because the impact of these fisheries on marine mammals is remote. Commercial fishing operations that NMFS determines meet the definition of an exempt fishery would still be required to obtain a comparability finding by having the harvesting nation demonstrate that it has either prohibited the intentional mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations in these exempt fisheries, unless the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal is imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in immediate danger; or that it has procedures to reliably certify
NMFS defines “export fishery” as a foreign commercial fishing operation determined by the Assistant Administrator to be the source of exports of commercial fish and fish products to the United States and to have more than a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals (as defined in the definition of an “exempt fishery”) in the course of its commercial fishing operations. Where reliable information has not been provided by the harvesting nation on the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals caused by the commercial fishing operation, the Assistant Administrator may determine whether the likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury is more than “remote” by evaluating information concerning factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or other factors at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator that may inform whether the likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals caused by the commercial fishing operation is more than “remote.” Commercial fishing operations not specifically identified in the current List of Foreign Fisheries as either exempt or export fisheries are deemed to be export fisheries until the next List of Foreign Fisheries is published unless the Assistant Administrator has reliable information from the harvesting nation to properly classify the foreign commercial fishing operation. Additionally, the Assistant Administrator, may request additional information from the harvesting nation and may consider other relevant information as set forth in paragraph (h)(3) of this section about such commercial fishing operations and the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals, to properly classify the foreign commercial fishing operation.
Export fisheries would be considered to be the functional equivalent to Category I or II fisheries under the U.S. regulatory program (see definitions at 50 CFR 229.2). Fisheries that NMFS determines have more than a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals, or for which there is a lack of reliable information that they have no or a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury to marine mammals, will be classified as export fisheries. Because the United States focuses its incidental mortality and serious injury assessment efforts on Category I and II fisheries (which are domestic fisheries where the likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury is more than remote) NMFS proposes that the regulatory requirements of this proposed rule apply to export fisheries.
Within the first year of the effective date of the final rule implementing sections 101(a)(2) and 102(c)(3) of the MMPA, NMFS would produce a proposed and final List of Foreign Fisheries. To develop this list, NMFS would analyze imports of fish and fish products and identify harvesting nations with fisheries exporting such fish and fish products to the United States that are likely harvested with gear (
If estimates of the total incidental mortality and serious injury are available and a bycatch limit has been calculated, NMFS will use the quantitative and tiered analysis to classify foreign commercial fishing operations as export or exempt fisheries under the category definition within 50 CFR 229.2 and the procedures used to categorize U.S. fisheries as Category I, II, or III, reflected at
Initially, NMFS expects information on the frequency of interactions in most foreign fisheries to be lacking or incomplete. In the absence of quantifiable information or reliable information from the harvesting nation, NMFS would classify fisheries by analogy with similar U.S. fisheries and gear types interacting with similar marine mammal stocks using readily available information or available observer or logbook information per the procedures outlined in 50 CFR 229.2. Where no analogous fishery or fishery information exists, NMFS would classify the commercial fishing operation as an export fishery until such time as the harvesting nation provides the reliable information to properly classify the fishery or in the course of preparing the List of Foreign Fisheries such information is readily available to the Assistant Administrator.
NMFS is proposing this approach since it follows the U.S. domestic program's implementation. In situations where no information exists for a domestic fishery, MMPA regulations direct NMFS to place the fishery into Category II, because the MMPA provides the authority to place observers on vessels participating in Category II fisheries to collect information, evaluate risk to the marine mammal stock, and to properly categorize the fishery (50 CFR 229.2 and 229.7(d)). The MMPA requires that a harvesting nation provide the reasonable proof necessary for the United States to determine the “effects on ocean mammals of the commercial fishing technology.” Because harvesting nations are not required for exempt fisheries to implement a regulatory program governing the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program or, by extension, to report or estimate incidental mortality and serious injury for the fishery, fisheries lacking reliable information of their level of incidental mortality and serious injury must be classified as an export fishery until such time as the nation can provide the reliable information required by the MMPA to classify the fishery or in the course of preparing the List of Foreign Fisheries such information is readily available to the Assistant Administrator. If NMFS does
The year prior to the expiration of the exemption period and every four years thereafter, NMFS proposes to re-evaluate foreign commercial fishing operations and publish a notice of the draft, for public comment, and the final revised List of Foreign Fisheries in the
To classify fisheries, gather information to assist in making a comparability finding, or determine if a harvesting nation's fishery is still in compliance with the terms of a previously-issued comparability finding, NMFS may solicit information as part of the High Seas Drift Net Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (HSDFMPA) information solicitation and use information obtained from U.S. government agencies; harvesting nations; other foreign, regional, and local governments; regional fishery management organizations; nongovernmental organizations; industry organizations; academic institutions; and citizens and citizen groups to identify commercial fishing operations with intentional or incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Such information may include fishing vessel records; reports of on-board fishery observers; information from off-loading facilities, port-side government officials, enforcement agents, transshipment vessel workers and fish importers; government vessel registries; RFMO or intergovernmental agreement documents, reports, and statistical document programs; appropriate catch certification programs; and published literature and reports on commercial fishing operations with intentional or incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals.
NMFS would publish the final List of Foreign Fisheries in the
The List of Foreign Fisheries would be organized by harvesting nation and other defining factors including geographic location of harvest, gear-type, target species or a combination thereof. For example, tuna fisheries in the western central Pacific could be designated as the western central Pacific yellowfin tuna purse seine fishery. The List of Foreign Fisheries would also include a list of the marine mammals that interact with each commercial fishing operation and indicate the level of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in each commercial fishing operation. If available, the list would also provide a description of the harvesting nation's programs to assess marine mammal stocks and estimate and reduce marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury in its export fisheries; and actions it has taken to prohibit, in the course of commercial fishing operations that are the source of exports to the United States, the intentional mortality or serious injury of marine mammals.
The proposed rule includes several consultations that are specific to the comparability finding and those are outlined below. Three broad consultation areas are (1) notification of the List of Foreign Fisheries; (2) notification of a denial of a comparability finding; and (3) discretionary consultations for transmittal or exchange of information. Within ninety days of the date of publication of the final List of Foreign Fisheries in the
NMFS would consult with harvesting nations throughout the exemption period and implementation of the program outlined in this rule. Given the number of nations, fisheries, and the range of exports, NMFS does not envision that all nations will need the same level of consultations. The exact nature and extent of these consultations are discretionary for NMFS and is a mechanism through which the United States could potentially assist a harvesting nation's needs for information and technical expertise. NMFS, in consultation with the Department of State, would, when necessary or upon request by a harvesting nation, initiate bilateral discussions with the harvesting nation to, among other things:
• Communicate the provisions of the MMPA;
• Provide notifications of deadlines for reports or comparability finding applications;
• Discuss the development, adoption, implementation, or enforcement of the harvesting nation's regulatory program;
• Offer an opportunity to provide or supplement information on the implementation and enforcement of the harvesting nation's regulatory program in conjunction with an application, preliminary comparability finding, or reconsideration of a comparability finding; and
• Provide an opportunity for the harvesting nation to clarify, support, or refute information from other sources in conjunction with the List of Foreign Fisheries, the progress report or an application for a comparability finding.
NMFS, in consultation with the Department of State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative, would notify harvesting nations with fisheries that are likely to fail to receive a comparability finding for a fishery and provide the harvesting nation with an opportunity to refute preliminary comparability findings, and communicate any corrective actions taken to comply with the conditions of a comparability finding. If a harvesting nation cannot refute preliminary
Section 101(a)(2)(A) requires that the Assistant Administrator “insist on reasonable proof” from harvesting nations as to the effect of its commercial fishing technology on marine mammals. As a condition to import fish and fish products into the United States, NMFS proposes to require that a harvesting nation apply for and receive a comparability finding for its fisheries. The first application for a comparability finding must be submitted by March 1st of the last year of the exemption period, and on March 1st every four years thereafter. To receive a comparability finding, a harvesting nation must submit an application, along with documentary evidence demonstrating that the harvesting nation's export or exempt fishery meets the requirements of a comparability finding including, where applicable, reasonable proof as to the effects on marine mammals of the commercial fishing technology in use in the fishery for fish or fish products exported from such nation to the United States. For the purposes of this proposed rule, documentary evidence means the submission to the Assistant Administrator by a responsible government official from a harvesting nation of information of sufficient detail, including an attestation that the information is accurate, to allow the Assistant Administrator to evaluate the effects on ocean mammals of the commercial fishing technology in use for such fish or fish products exported from such nation to the United States for making a comparability finding. When making a comparability finding NMFS will rely largely on the documentary evidence provided by the harvesting nation; however, NOAA will also consider information from other readily available sources. Where information from the harvesting nation is insufficient, NOAA will draw reasonable conclusions based on information from other sources, including analogous fisheries. For example, where a harvesting nation does not provide sufficient relevant information for a fishery and information from other sources of direct evidence regarding the fishery is not readily available to NOAA, the Assistant Administrator shall draw reasonable conclusions based on other information, such as indirect evidence of bycatch in the fishery or information from analogous fisheries (
The comparability finding has two parts. The first part requires the harvesting nation to demonstrate that it has either prohibited the intentional mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations in an exempt and export fishery unless the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal is imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in immediate danger; or that it has procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products to the United States are not the product of an intentional killing or serious injury of a marine mammal unless the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal is imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in immediate danger. No later than November 30th of the year when the exemption period or comparability finding is to expire, NMFS would grant or renew the comparability finding for exempt fisheries should they meet this condition, export fisheries must meet this and other conditions, discussed below.
The prohibition of intentional killing or seriously injuring a marine mammal is one of the U.S. standards within the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(a)(5) and 16 U.S.C. 1372(c)(3)). The United States prohibits the intentional killing or injury of marine mammals in the course of all commercial fishing operations unless the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal is imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in immediate danger. Therefore, NMFS proposes that to receive a comparability finding, a harvesting nation must demonstrate for all exempt and export fisheries, whether such operations are within its EEZ, its territorial sea, the EEZ of another coastal state (excluding its territorial sea) or on the high seas, that it either prohibits the intentional killing or serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations unless the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal is imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in immediate danger; or that it has procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products to the United States are not the product of an intentional killing or serious injury of a marine mammal unless the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal is imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in immediate danger. This prohibition includes aquaculture operations that interact with or occur in marine mammal habitat and the intentional killing of marine mammals for bait in commercial fishing operations. The application of the intentional lethal removal provisions of Section 120 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1389) do not fall under this proposed rule as they are not undertaken in the course of commercial fishing.
Harvesting nations may implement this provision by either instituting a law, regulation, or licensure or permit condition applicable to its export and exempt fisheries that prohibits the intentional killing or serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations. In the absence of this approach, a harvesting nation must submit documentary evidence that it has procedures, such as certification programs and tracking and verification schemes, to reliably certify that its exports of fish and fish products to the United States are not the product of the intentional killing or serious injury of marine mammals.
To receive a comparability finding for export fisheries, a harvesting nation must not only demonstrate that it meets the conditions related to intentional killing and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fisheries, it must also meet a second condition. The Assistant Administrator will grant or renew a comparability finding for an export fishery under the jurisdiction of a harvesting nation provided the harvesting nation has and, in the case of a renewal, maintains a regulatory program that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program in reducing marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury in commercial fishing operations, including for transboundary stocks, subject to the additional considerations for a comparability finding set out in the
Different conditions exist for the following areas of a harvesting nation's export fisheries: Export fisheries operating within the EEZ or territorial waters of the harvesting nation, export fisheries operating within the jurisdiction of another coastal state and export fisheries operating on the high seas. Each is discussed below. The proposed rule's consideration of these three different areas is comparable to the U.S. regulatory program governing U.S. domestic fisheries operating in these areas.
In using the terms “comparable in effectiveness” NMFS means that the program includes the same conditions listed below or the program effectively achieves comparable results to the U.S. regulatory program. This approach gives harvesting nations flexibility to implement the same type of regulatory program or a program that is completely different but achieves the same results.
Since NMFS has developed regulatory measures for its domestic commercial fisheries with incidental mortality and serious injury of transboundary stocks and shares management authority for such stocks with other harvesting nations, NMFS emphasizes the consideration of transboundary stocks in the comparability finding conditions in the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, NMFS defines a transboundary stock as a marine mammal stock occurring in the EEZ or territorial sea of the United States and one or more other coastal States, or in the EEZ or territorial sea of the United States and on the high seas. Because NMFS shares conservation and management for these stocks with other nations, a harvesting nation must demonstrate that it has implemented a regulatory program for its export fisheries (whether operating in its EEZ, territorial sea, or on the high seas) that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program for transboundary stocks, especially for transboundary stocks governed by specific requirements of the U.S. regulatory program, including take reduction plans.
NMFS recognizes that harvesting nations face resource limitations. A harvesting nation can submit an application for a comparability finding for all or a subset of its export fisheries. In the proposed rule, the harvesting nation has the flexibility to prioritize the export fisheries to which it will devote resources towards developing its regulatory program. Export fisheries not included in the application and not governed by the harvesting nation's regulatory program will not receive a comparability finding and will be ineligible to export fish and fish products to the United States.
NOAA seeks comment on alternative approaches for meeting the requirements of section 101(a)(2)of the MMPA. For example, the rule could operate on the basis of non-comparability findings. Under this alternative, the Assistant Administrator would issue non-comparability findings where it determines (considering documentary evidence and information from other sources that a harvesting nation's regulatory program is not comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program and that the commercial fishing technology used in the fishery results in marine mammal bycatch in excess of U.S. standards. Under this alternative, continued entry of seafood into the U.S. would be predicated on the absence of a “non-comparability finding,” though the criteria could be similar to what is described in below, as applicable.
A modification of this alternative would be for the Assistant Administrator to issue comparability findings unless it determines (considering documentary evidence and information from other sources) that a harvesting nation's regulatory program is not comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program and that the commercial fishing technology used in the fishery results in marine mammal bycatch in excess of U.S. standards. The regulatory text would read as follows:
“Conditions for a Comparability Finding. In response to an application, the Assistant Administrator shall issue a harvesting nation a comparability finding for the fishery unless the Assistant Administrator finds that the harvesting nation has not met the applicable conditions set out in . . .)”
Comments should discuss the relative costs and benefits of these or any other alternative approaches, including aspects related to paperwork burden.
A comparability finding would be granted or renewed for an export fishery where the Assistant Administrator finds that the harvesting nation implements a regulatory program comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program with respect to the export fishery that includes, or effectively achieves comparable results as, the following conditions:
1. Marine mammal stock assessments that estimate population abundance for marine mammal stocks in waters under its jurisdiction that are incidentally killed or seriously injured in the export fishery;
2. An export fishery register containing a list of all vessels participating in an export fishery under the jurisdiction of the harvesting nation, including the number of vessels participating, information on gear type, target species, fishing season, and fishing area for each export fishery;
3. Regulatory requirements (
(a) A requirement for the owner or operator of vessels participating in the fishery to report all intentional and incidental mortality and injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations; and
(b) A requirement to implement measures in export fisheries designed to reduce the total incidental mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock below the bycatch limit. Such measures may include: Bycatch reduction devices; incidental mortality and serious injury limits; careful release and safe-handling of marine mammals and gear removal; gear marking; bycatch avoidance gear (
4. Implementation of monitoring procedures in export fisheries designed to estimate incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in each export fishery under its jurisdiction, as well as estimates of cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury for marine mammal stocks in waters under its jurisdiction that are incidentally killed or seriously injured in the export fishery and other export fisheries with the same marine mammal stock, including an indication of the statistical reliability of those estimates;
5. Calculation of bycatch limits for marine mammal stocks in waters under its jurisdiction that are incidentally killed or seriously injured in an export fishery;
6. Comparison of the incidental mortality and serious injury of each marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export fishery in relation to the bycatch limit for each stock; and comparison of the cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury of each marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export fishery and any other export fisheries of the harvesting nation showing that these export fisheries:
(a) Does not exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks; or
(b) Exceeds the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks, but the portion of
NMFS is proposing that a harvesting nation calculate bycatch limits using either the PBR equation (50 CFR 229.2), or a comparable equation that incorporates scientific uncertainty about the population estimate and trend and results in sustainable levels of incidental mortality and serious injury while still allowing the marine mammal stock to grow or recover. The scientific literature demonstrates other nations have adopted variations on PBR that are comparable and achieve this goal.
For marine mammal stocks that have bycatch limits and the export fisheries that interact with those stocks, a harvesting nation that is seeking a comparability finding for an export fishery must demonstrate that the cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury of each marine mammal stock or stocks resulting from fishing technology used by the export fishery and any other export fisheries of the harvesting nation that interact with the same marine mammal stock or stocks does not exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks. In instances where the cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury exceeds the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks, the harvesting nation must demonstrate that the portion of incidental marine mammal mortality or serious injury for which the exporting fishery is responsible is at a level that, if the other export fisheries of that harvesting nation interacting with the same marine mammal stock or stocks were at the same level, would not result in cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury in excess of the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks.
For example, in the latter scenario, three export fisheries (A, B, and C) cumulatively exceed the bycatch limit of 30 animals for a particular marine mammal stock. If export fishery C's incidental mortality and serious injury is 5 animals, it would meet this condition to qualify for a comparability finding, if all three export fisheries each had the same level of incidental mortality and serious injury (
In this situation, NMFS expects a harvesting nation will take measures to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury by all of its export fisheries, but that it would prioritize and implement more stringent measures on export fisheries with the highest bycatch levels.
To implement its regulatory program, generally, regardless of location, the harvesting nation may enter into arrangements with academic institutions, non-governmental bodies, or any other entity to conduct assessments, estimate incidental mortality and serious injury, test and implement mitigation measures, or carry out any other components of the regulatory program, so long as the harvesting nation maintains responsibility for the oversight, verification and reporting on the implementation of its regulatory program to the United States.
A nation could receive a comparability finding for its export fishery without conducting a marine mammal stock assessment, estimating bycatch, or calculating a bycatch limit provided it can demonstrate that its program achieves comparable results to the U.S. regulatory program. NMFS will consider whether a regulatory program effectively achieves the outcomes of the U.S. regulatory program for similar marine mammal stocks and fisheries (considering gear type and target species), providing flexibility to allow a nation to develop comparably effective alternative measures to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury. Therefore, the Assistant Administrator may make a comparability finding based on alternative measures or approaches provided the harvesting nation's regulatory program effectively achieves comparable results to the U.S. regulatory program.
International law provides that coastal States have sovereign rights to manage fisheries in waters under their jurisdiction. More than ninety percent of the global fish catch is estimated to be taken within waters under the jurisdiction of coastal States. The large majority of fishing activity taking place in waters under the jurisdiction of most coastal States is undertaken by vessels registered in the coastal States themselves. In such situations, the coastal State is also the flag State and the harvesting nation. This scenario covers fishing vessels registered to a harvesting nation that operate with permission of another coastal State or fish under terms of access granted to them by the coastal State.
The Assistant Administrator will grant or renew a comparability finding for an export fishery operating within the jurisdiction of another coastal state where the Assistant Administrator finds that the harvesting nation maintains a regulatory program that includes, or effectively achieves comparable results as, the following conditions:
1. Implementation in the export fishery:
(a) With respect to any transboundary stock interacting with the export fishery, any measures to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of that stock that the United States requires its domestic fisheries to take with respect that transboundary stock; and
(b) With respect to any other marine mammal stocks interacting with the export fishery while operating within the jurisdiction of the coastal state or on the high seas, any measures to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury that the United States requires its domestic fisheries to take with respect to that marine mammal stock.
2. For an export fishery not subject to management by a regional fishery management organization the harvesting nation:
(a) An assessment of marine mammal abundance of stocks interacting with the export fishery, the calculation of a bycatch limit for each such stock, an estimation of incidental mortality and serious injury for each stock and reduction in or maintenance of the incidental mortality and serious injury of each stock below the bycatch limit. This data included in the application may be provided by the coastal state; and
(b) Comparison of the incidental mortality and serious injury of each marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export fishery in relation to the bycatch limit for each stock; and comparison of the cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury of each marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export fishery and any other export fisheries of the harvesting nation showing that these export fisheries do not exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks; or exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks, but the portion of incidental marine mammal mortality or serious injury for which the export fishery is responsible is at a level that, if the other export fisheries interacting with the same marine mammal stock or stocks were at the same level, would not result in cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury in excess of the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks.
3. For an export fishery subject to management by a regional fishery management organization, the harvesting nation demonstrates it
For export fisheries operating on the high seas, the Assistant Administrator would grant or renew a comparability finding where the Assistant Administrator finds that the harvesting nation maintains a regulatory program with respect to the harvesting nation's export fisheries operating on the high seas that includes, or effectively achieves comparable results as, the following conditions:
1. Implementation in the fishery of marine mammal data collection and conservation and management measures applicable to that fishery required under any applicable intergovernmental agreement or regional fisheries management organization to which the United States is a party; and
2. Implementation in the export fishery of:
(a) With respect to any transboundary stock interacting with the export fishery, any measures to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of that stock that the United States requires its domestic fisheries to take with respect that transboundary stock; and
(b) With respect to any other marine mammal stocks interacting with the export fishery while operating on the high seas, any measures to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury that the United States requires its domestic fisheries to take with respect to that marine mammal stock when they are operating on the high seas.
An export fishery must satisfy the appropriate condition to receive a comparability finding. For example, for high seas export fisheries or export fisheries operating within another coastal state's EEZ and governed by an RFMO, the proposed rule includes as a condition for a comparability finding that the harvesting nation has adopted and implemented data collection and conservation and management measures required under an applicable intergovernmental agreement or RFMO to which the United States is a party. By taking this approach NMFS recognizes, where the United States is a party to a multilateral agreement, the measures adopted under that agreement should be used among other factors to assess those export fisheries.
These provisions also provide an alternative route to receiving a comparability finding, including in circumstances when the export fishery is governed by an intergovernmental agreement or RFMO to which the United States is not a party. In this situation, NMFS will evaluate any conservation and management measures adopted by the intergovernmental agreement or RFMO and any other measures adopted by a harvesting nation that constitute its regulatory program governing its high seas export fisheries interacting with marine mammals. NMFS will then determine whether this regulatory program is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program for similar fisheries interacting with similar stocks.
This provision also addresses situations where the United States has adopted measures through a take reduction plan governing U.S. vessels participating in high seas fisheries to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of a transboundary stock. While the United States would attempt to advance such measures for adoption by the intergovernmental agreement or RFMO, there may be situations where the measures are not adopted by the RFMO. In that case, for high seas fisheries that interact with transboundary stocks, a harvesting nation would be expected to implement a regulatory program for such stocks that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program for its vessels operating on the high seas or the U.S. EEZ or territorial sea, including any relevant RFMO measures that the U.S. is applying on its fisheries. If the U.S. regulatory program includes measures prescribed for the high seas and the U.S. EEZ or territorial sea to reduce the incidental mortality or serious injury of transboundary stocks, and such stocks frequent both the high seas and the harvesting nation's EEZ or territorial sea, the harvesting nation must have a regulatory program applicable to both areas that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program.
When determining whether to grant or renew any comparability finding for a fishery, the Assistant Administrator would review and evaluate information submitted by the harvesting nation in making its application for each fishery, and consider readily available information from other sources, on the extent of the harvesting nation's implementation of its regulatory program in the export fishery and progress toward reducing the total incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the export fishery to levels below the bycatch limit. This information could include data readily available to the U.S. Government as well as information made available by other nations, international organizations (such as RFMOs), institutions, bilateral or other arrangements, or non-governmental organizations.
When determining whether a harvesting nation's regulatory program is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program, NMFS will consider:
• U.S. implementation of its regulatory program for similar marine mammal stocks and similar fisheries (considering gear, target species, or other factors), including transboundary stocks governed by regulations implementing a take reduction plan, and any other relevant information received during consultations;
• The extent to which the harvesting nation has implemented measures in the export fishery to reduce the total incidental mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock below the bycatch limit;
• The effectiveness of such measures, based on evidence that such measures implemented in an export fishery have reduced or are progressing and likely to reduce the cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock below the bycatch limit, especially for the marine mammal stocks interacting with an export fishery with the greatest contribution to the incidental mortality and serious injury;
• Relevant facts and circumstances, which may include, the history and nature of interactions with marine mammals in this export fishery, whether the level of incidental mortality and serious injury exceeds the bycatch limit for a marine mammal stock, the population size and trend (particularly for declining stocks), and the estimated population level impacts of the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in a harvesting nation's export fisheries and the conservation status of the marine mammal stocks where available;
• The record of consultations with the harvesting nation, the results of these consultations and actions taken by the harvesting nation and any applicable intergovernmental agreement or RFMO to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in its export fisheries; and
• Information gathered during onsite inspection by any government official of
For export fisheries operating on the high seas covered by an intergovernmental agreement or RFMO to which the United States is a party, NMFS will consider among other things:
• The harvesting nation's record of implementation of or compliance with measures adopted by that RFMO or intergovernmental agreement for data collection, incidental mortality and serious injury mitigation, or the conservation and management of marine mammals;
• Whether the harvesting nation is a party or cooperating non-party to the organization; and
• The record of the United States in implementing or complying with such measures and whether it has imposed additional measures on its fleet not required by the RFMO or intergovernmental agreement.
With regard to export fisheries operating on the high seas, under an intergovernmental agreement or RFMO to which the United States is not a party NMFS will consider, among other things:
• The harvesting nation's record of implementation of, or compliance with, measures adopted by that RFMO or intergovernmental agreement for data collection, incidental mortality and serious injury mitigation, or for the conservation and management of marine mammals, and whether such measures are comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program for similar fisheries;
• Whether the harvesting nation is a party or cooperating non-party to the organization; and
• The effectiveness of any additional measures implemented by the harvesting nation to reduce or mitigate the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in these export fisheries, and whether such measures are comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program for similar fisheries.
For transboundary stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured in a high seas export fishery, NMFS will also consider the extent to which the harvesting nation has adopted and implemented a regulatory program, including measures to reduce the incidental mortality or serious injury of transboundary stocks in export fisheries operating on the high seas and within its EEZ or territorial sea, that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program governing similar U.S. fisheries.
NMFS would make comparability findings pursuant to the MMPA, and also considering U.S. regulations implementing our obligations under RFMOs, intergovernmental agreements, trade agreements. NMFS will make determinations and any resulting imposition of import restrictions consistent with the international obligations of the United States, including under the WTO Agreement pertaining to non-discrimination.
In this regard, where NMFS lacks data and PBR calculations for analogous U.S. fisheries, NMFS would not require foreign nations to have such data or calculations as a condition for a comparability finding. In addition, where analogous U.S. fisheries have not reduced bycatch below an established bycatch limit, NMFS will evaluate the measures harvesting nations have adopted and determine whether those measures are at least as comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program in reducing marine mammal bycatch.
Finally NMFS is interested in receiving comments on the extent to which these additional considerations should also apply to exempt fisheries.
No later than November 30th of the year when the exemption period or comparability finding is to expire, the Assistant Administrator shall publish in the
Prior to publication in the
• Issuing a comparability finding;
• Denying a comparability finding with an explanation for the reasons for the denial of such comparability finding; and
• Specify the fish and fish products that will be subject to import prohibitions on account of a denial of a comparability finding and the effective date of such import prohibitions.
Notification is the action whereby the decision is made. For a fishery that applied for and is unlikely to receive a comparability finding, NMFS will implement a preliminary comparability finding consultation. Specifically, for a fishery that applied for and is unlikely to receive a comparability finding NMFS, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative, would notify the harvesting nation prior to the notification and publication of the decision whether to issue or deny a comparability finding in the
For those fisheries that receive a comparability finding, such finding will remain valid for 4 years or for such other period as the Assistant Administrator may specify to keep it on the same renewal cycle, particularly if the comparability finding was issued as part of a reapplication following a denied or terminated comparability finding or was an application for a new export fishery proposed after a round of comparability findings. NMFS prefers to keep all nations on the same cycle. Thus if a harvesting nation is denied a comparability finding for an export fishery and reapplies mid-cycle and receives a comparability finding for that fishery, the duration may be less to bring it into a cycle with all other comparability findings. Likewise this language also allows NMFS to issue a comparability finding for less than four years to a fishery that was on the cusp of denial but would benefit from additional time to demonstrate that its regulatory program is comparable in effectiveness.
To seek renewal of a comparability finding, every 4 years, the harvesting nation must submit to the Assistant Administrator an application by March 1 of the year when the comparability finding is due to expire, requesting a comparability finding for the fishery and providing the same documentary evidence required for the initial comparability finding, including by providing documentary evidence of any alternative measures they implemented to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in their export fishery are comparable in effectiveness and achieve comparable results to the U.S. regulatory program. The Assistant Administrator may require the submission of additional supporting documentation or verification of statements made to support a comparability finding. If a harvesting nation's fishery does not receive a comparability finding during this renewal process, the procedures detailed below to implement import restrictions would be followed.
For foreign commercial fishing operations not on the List of Foreign Fisheries that are new exports to the United States, the harvesting nation must notify the Assistant Administrator that the commercial fishing operation wishes to export fish and fish products to the United States. Upon notification the Assistant Administrator shall issue a provisional comparability finding allowing such imports for a period not to exceed 12 months. At least 120 days prior to the expiration of the provisional comparability finding the harvesting nation must submit to the Assistant Administrator the reliable information specified in the section to categorize foreign fisheries and the application and the documentary evidence required to receive a comparability finding, including reasonable proof as to the effects on marine mammals of the commercial fishing technology in use in the fishery for fish or fish products exported to the United States.
Prior to expiration of the provisional comparability finding, the Assistant Administrator shall review the application and information provided and classify the commercial fishing operation as either an exempt or export fishery and determine whether to issue the harvesting nation a comparability finding for the fishery.
If the harvesting nation submits the reliable information specified to classify the fishery at least 180 days prior to expiration of the provisional comparability finding, the Assistant Administrator will review that information and classify the fishery as either an exempt or export fishery.
In addition, the Assistant Administrator may reconsider a comparability finding and may terminate a comparability finding if he or she determines that the requirements of these regulations are no longer being met. Given that comparability findings are made every four years, this provision allows the Assistant Administrator to consider the progress report submitted by a harvesting nation, information collected by the NMFS, or information provided by entities including RFMOs, nongovernmental organizations, and the public, to determine whether the exempt or export fishery is continuing to meet the requirements of these regulations. After such review or reconsideration, and after consultation with the harvesting nation (preliminary comparability finding), a comparability finding can be terminated if the Assistant Administrator determines that the basis for the comparability finding no longer applies. The Assistant Administrator shall notify in writing the harvesting nation and publish in the
With respect to a harvesting nation for which the Assistant Administrator has denied or terminated a comparability finding for a fishery, the Assistant Administrator in cooperation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security would identify and prohibit importation of fish and fish products from that fishery into the United States until the harvesting nation's fishery applies or reapplies for, and receives, a comparability finding. The Assistant Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security, will publish a notice of such import restrictions in the
NMFS, in consultation with the Department of State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative, would consult with harvesting nations that failed to receive a comparability finding for a fishery, provide the reasons for the denial of such comparability finding, and encourage the harvesting nation to take corrective action and reapply for a comparability finding.
Any harvesting nation's fishery that fails to attain a comparability finding would remain subject to import prohibitions until it has satisfactorily met the conditions for and received a comparability finding. A harvesting nation may, at any time, re-apply for or request the reconsideration of a denied comparability finding for a fishery, and submit documentary evidence to the Assistant Administrator in support of such application or request. Upon issuance of a comparability finding and notification to the harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security, would publish notification of the removal of the import prohibitions for that fishery, effective on the date of publication in the
If fish or fish products are subject to import prohibitions from a harvesting nation's fishery, the Assistant Administrator, to avoid circumvention of or to facilitate enforcement of import prohibitions, may publish in the
The Assistant Administrator shall notify the harvesting nation of the fisheries and the fish and fish products to be accompanied by a certification of admissibility and provide the necessary documents and instruction. The Assistant Administrator in cooperation with the Secretaries of Treasury and Homeland Security, shall as part of the
For each shipment, the certification of admissibility must be completed and signed by a duly authorized official or agent of the harvesting nation and validated by a responsible official(s)
Should import prohibitions be imposed due to denial or revocation of a comparability finding, NMFS will identify to Customs and Border Protection the specific HTS codes for fish and fish products subject to embargo from the relevant harvesting nation. If the fish and fish products subject to an import prohibition also originate from a different fishery of the same harvesting nation, and that different fishery is exempt or has been issued a comparability finding, these products may be subject to requirement for a certification of admissibility whereby such products would be admissible to the U.S. if accompanied by a certification of admissibility that they were not harvested in the fishery subject to the embargo. The certification of admissibility must be properly completed and signed by a duly authorized official or agent of the harvesting nation. At the time of implementing an import prohibition, NMFS will communicate the scope of the prohibition to the harvesting nation and, should it be the case that the identified fish and fish products may also originate from a fishery of the harvesting nation other than the fishery subject to embargo, NMFS would work with the harvesting nation to define an acceptable protocol for certification of the identified fish and fish products from the harvesting nation's non-embargoed fisheries and obtain a list of duly authorized officials designated by the harvesting nation as well as details of the methods to be implemented by the harvesting nation to ensure that certifications are not issued for products of prohibited fisheries. The certification would be required for all inbound shipments of the identified products (designated by HTS codes) from the harvesting nation. While the certification must be properly completed and signed as a condition of entry, NMFS will also validate the certifications to ensure that prohibited products are not admitted. NMFS will designate validating authorities (
The certification of admissibility would be a requirement for lawful import for the fish and fish products identified by harmonized tariff codes communicated by NMFS to Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The certification would be collected as part of electronic entry filing through the Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS). It is envisioned that a limited number of data elements would be collected through the partner government agency message set as part of the entry/entry summary submission in ACE/ITDS. In addition, an image file of the certification document would be submitted at entry summary through the document imaging system maintained by CBP as part of ACE/ITDS.
The NMFS approach to integrating its existing trade monitoring programs into ACE/ITDS is to be addressed in a separate rulemaking that is currently under development (RIN 0648-AX63). When the ACE/ITDS rulemaking and subsequent rulemakings to implement the recommendations of the Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Task Force) (79 FR 75536; December 18, 2014) are issued, NMFS may be able to identify fish prohibited from entry under MMPA authority based on the documentation specifying fishery of capture/harvest to be submitted by the importer to ACE/ITDS as part of the Task Force traceability program. To eliminate duplicative requirements for MMPA import restrictions, NMFS will utilize import documentation procedures that have been developed as part of the ACE/ITDS and Task Force rulemakings so long as the information is sufficient to identify the fish or fish product was not caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition under the MMPA.
To prevent any fish or fish products subject to import prohibitions authorized by this rulemaking from being imported into the United States from any intermediary nation, including a processing nation, NMFS proposes provisions for intermediary nations. A fishery without a comparability finding may still export its fish and fish products to an intermediary nation. That intermediary nation from which fish and fish products would be imported into the United States must in turn certify that it exports do not include fish and fish products from a harvesting nation's fisheries that are subject to U.S. import prohibitions applied under this rule. To implement this provision, NMFS would not require an intermediary nation to enact laws or regulations to meet this condition. NMFS recognizes that an intermediary nation needs flexibility to determine how it will certify to the United States that any fish or fish product that it exports is not subject to import prohibitions applied under this rule. The proposed rule creates flexibility with respect to how a nation can show that it does not export prohibited fish and fish products to the United States, including by providing any certification, traceability, or tracking scheme that may be readily available or that it chooses to create. The nation must demonstrate that it has procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products from the intermediary to the United States do not contain fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition. Those procedures can be implemented globally or on a shipment-by-shipment basis. They could include prohibiting the import of the prohibited fish and fish products, prohibiting the export of such product to the United States, or maintaining a tracking and verification scheme and including certification of such scheme on a shipment-by-shipment basis.
For purposes of this proposed rule, and in applying the definition of an “intermediary nation,” an import into the intermediary nation occurs when the fish or fish product is released from a harvesting nation's custom jurisdiction and enters the custom jurisdiction of the intermediary nation or when the fish and fish products are entered into a foreign trade zone of the intermediary nation for processing or transshipment. No fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition may be imported into the United States from any intermediary nation.
Within 30 days of publication of the
Within 60 days from the date of notification, a nation must certify to the Assistant Administrator that it:
(1) Does not import, or does not offer for import into the United States, fish or fish products subject to an import prohibition; or
(2) Has procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products from the intermediary to the United States do not contain fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition.
The intermediary nation must provide documentary evidence to support its certification including information demonstrating that:
(1) It has not imported in the preceding 6 months the fish and fish products for which it was notified; or
(2) It maintains a tracking, verification, or other scheme to reliably certify on either a global, individual shipment or other appropriate basis that fish and fish products from the intermediary nation offered for import to the United States do not contain of fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition and for which it was notified.
No later than 120 days after a notification, the Assistant Administrator will review the certification and documentary evidence provided by the intermediary nation and determine based on that information or other readily available information whether the intermediary nation imports fish and fish products subject import prohibitions and, if so, whether the intermediary nation has procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products from the intermediary to the United States do not contain fish or fish products subject to import prohibitions, and notify the intermediary nation of its determination.
If the Assistant Administrator determines that the intermediary nation does not have procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products from the intermediary to the United States do not contain fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition, the Assistant Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security, will file with the Office of the
The Assistant Administrator will review determinations under this paragraph upon the request of an intermediary nation. Such requests must be accompanied by specific and detailed supporting information or documentation indicating that a review or reconsideration is warranted. Based upon such information and other relevant information, the Assistant Administrator may determine that the intermediary nation should no longer be subject to an import prohibition. Based on that determination the Assistant Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security, may lift an import prohibition under this paragraph and publish notification of such action in the
In response to the recommendations of the Presidential Task Force on Combatting Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud (79 FR 75536; December 18, 2014), relevant U.S. government agencies are considering the scope of a seafood traceability scheme to prevent unlawfully acquired or fraudulently represented fish products from infiltrating the legitimate supply chain. It is envisioned that such a scheme would collect information on the origin of seafood products and the fishery in which such seafood is caught or harvested when such products are offered for entry into U.S. commerce. The National Ocean Council Committee on IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (NOC Committee) is seeking public input on the minimum types of information necessary for an effective seafood traceability program to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud, as well as the operational standards related to collecting, verifying and securing that data. The
• Who harvested or produced the fish, including name of harvesting vessel; flag state of harvesting vessel; name of farm or aquaculture facility; name of processor; and type of fishing gear.
• What fish was harvested and processed, including species of fish; product description; name of product; form of the product; and quantity and/or weight of the product.
• Where and when was the fish harvested and landed, including area of wild-capture or aquaculture harvest; harvest date(s); name and location of aquaculture facility; point of first landing; date of first landing.
Such information would be required for products exported directly from the harvesting nation, and also when exported from intermediary nations. NMFS is participating in the implementation of the Presidential Task Force's recommendations and will work to ensure that the Task Force's recommendations and this rule are implemented in a manner so as to avoid duplicative requirements. NMFS will also work with harvesting and intermediary nations to specify the data elements that must be collected and reported, and the interoperability standards for data management systems to ensure that the required data are available to entry filers at the point of import into U.S. commerce. Such a traceability scheme would also facilitate the certification options for intermediary nations, in addition to certificates of admissibility for harvesting nations, as envisioned by this proposed rule.
The Assistant Administrator would require each harvesting nation to submit a progress report. The first report would be submitted two years prior to the end of the exemption period and then every four years thereafter on or before July 31. In this report, the harvesting nation would present an update on actions taken over the previous two years to develop, adopt, and implement its regulatory program, as well as information on the performance of its export fisheries in reducing incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. The report allows NMFS to monitor the harvesting nation's efforts in its export fisheries and to work closely with a harvesting nation to ensure they meet and continue to meet the conditions for a comparability finding. NMFS is seeking comment on the utility of the progress report and an alternative that, after the first progress report, would only require subsequent progress reports for those fisheries denied a comparability finding or for which a comparability finding has been terminated and wish to reapply.
This progress report should describe in detail the methods used to obtain the information contained in the progress report and should include a certification by the harvesting nation of its accuracy and authenticity.
Consistent with existing authority under the MMPA (16 U.S.C 1378), and subject to the availability of funds, NMFS may provide assistance to harvesting nations whose export fisheries NMFS has identified for assistance based on information in the List of Foreign Fisheries, comparability finding applications, progress reports, and to harvesting nations whose financial capacity to establish a comparable regulatory program is limited. To prioritize its capacity building efforts, NMFS may consider the needs of harvesting nations and the potential impacts of those nations' fisheries, based on: (1) Frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals, (2) incidental mortality and serious injury in excess of a bycatch limit, if known; and (3) incidental mortality and serious injury of a threatened or endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS may also consider the extent to which a harvesting nation has programs or the capacity to assess marine mammal stocks and estimate or mitigate marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury. Assistance activities may include cooperative research on marine mammal assessments (
Participating in the U.S. cooperation and assistance program is voluntary and would not determine whether a harvesting nation is issued a comparability finding. Likewise, NMFS' funds are limited and likely will be insufficient to meet all requests for assistance. NMFS' inability to provide requested assistance does not relieve a harvesting nation from the requirement to meet the conditions set forth in this proposed rule in order to obtain a comparability finding for an export fishery.
NMFS would utilize, as appropriate, existing programs and processes to conduct outreach to potentially affected nations, including the consultation process of the HSDFMPA (50 CFR 300.200
NMFS published an ANPR on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22731) describing options to develop procedures for implementing MMPA provisions for imports of fish and fish products and defining U.S. standards. The ANPR identified nine potential options to implement section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA in response to the petition for rulemaking. NMFS sought public comment on the following options:
NMFS received 42 comments from governmental entities, including the Marine Mammal Commission, individuals, and organizations. Comments received were compiled and are available on the Internet at
Although a nation may adopt a bycatch standard not currently in use by the United States, NMFS is not proposing to require nations to adopt and implement bycatch standards that we ourselves have not adopted and implemented. While the United States has not reduced incidental mortality and serious injury to insignificant levels (
The majority of comments from organizations and individuals supported implementing the MMPA import provisions through a prohibition on imports of fish and fish products, as well as NMFS broadening the scope of its response to the petition to encompass all fish imports.
This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1371.
Under NOAA Administrative Order (NAO 216-6), the promulgation of regulations that are procedural and administrative in nature are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an EA. Nevertheless, NMFS prepared an EA for this action to facilitate public involvement in the development of the proposed national standard and procedures and to evaluate the impacts on the environment. This EA provides context for reviewing the proposed action by describing the impacts on marine mammals associated with fishing, the methods the United States has used to reduce those impacts, and a comparison of how approaches under the MMPA and the HSDFMPA provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 would affect harvesting nations.
The alternatives described in section 2.1 of the EA provide five alternatives for ways to define “U.S. standards” for reducing mortality of marine mammals in fishing operations (Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.5). In addition to defining standards, the alternatives set out implementation and compliance steps as part of an overall regulatory program for harvesting nations wishing to import fish and fish products into the United States. To meet the purpose and need, NMFS will select one alternative.
The alternatives to implement the import provisions of the MMPA are as follows: Under Alternative 1, Quantitative Standard, NMFS would require harvesting nations wishing to export fish and fish products to the United States to, as required by NMFS for U.S. domestic fisheries, reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals to levels below PBR and subsequently to the same “insignificant” threshold, or 10 percent of potential biological removal in order to export fish and fish products to the United States.
Alternative 2 would require harvesting nations wishing to export fish and fish products to the United States to demonstrate comparability with U.S. standards as set out for domestic fisheries under sections 117 and 118 of the MMPA. Comparability is defined as “comparable in effectiveness to that of the United States [regulatory program],” not necessarily identical or as detailed. A finding of comparability would be made based on the documentary evidence provided by the harvesting nation to allow the Assistant Administrator to determine whether the harvesting nation has developed and implemented a regulatory program comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. program prescribed for U.S. commercial fisheries in sections 117 and 118 of the MMPA.” This is NMFS' preferred alternative. Like the prior alternative, the preferred alternative also requires calculation of PBR or a bycatch limit and reducing incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals to levels below the bycatch limit.
Alternative 3 would define U.S. standards as those specific regulatory
Alternative 4 uses a procedure of identification, documentation and certification devised under the HSDFMPA and promulgated as a final rule in January 2011 (76 FR 2011, January 12, 2011).
Alternative 5, the no action alternative, proposes an approach for taking no action to implement section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA.
Overall, the preferred alternative in the EA sets the U.S. import standards for harvesting nations as the same standard used for U.S. commercial fishing operations to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals with flexibility for comparability in effectiveness. It takes an approach that evaluates whether fish/fish products exported to the United States are subject to a regulatory program of the harvesting nation that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program in terms of reducing incidental mortality and serious injury and considers fish and fish products not subject to such a regulatory program as caught with technology that results in marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury in excess of U.S. standards. This approach provides harvesting nations with flexibility to implement the same measures as under the U.S. program or other measures that achieve comparable results.
This proposed rulemaking has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order (EO) 12866 because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.
Pursuant to EO 12866, NMFS conducted a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). When conducting the RIR and the EA's socioeconomic analysis of the preferred alternative, NMFS considered the number of harvesting nations and the types of fish products exported to the United States. NMFS is proposing to define “
The United States imports more than 67 marine species, with tuna, shrimp, salmon (both farmed and wild salmon)) molluscs, mackerel, and sardines representing the six largest imports. Tuna fisheries are conducted primarily on the high seas, whereas shrimp and salmon fisheries are a combination of live capture and aquaculture operations. For example, for high seas export fisheries to get a comparability finding, harvesting nations may demonstrate including among other things that they are implementing the requirements of an RFMO or intergovernmental agreement to which the U.S. is a party; likewise for aquaculture facilities classified as exempt fisheries and sited in marine mammal habitat or interacting with marine mammals, the harvesting nation must demonstrate it is prohibiting the intentional killing of marine mammals in the course of aquaculture operations or has procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products to the United States are not the product of an intentional killing or serious injury of a marine mammal. Therefore, NMFS anticipates that out of 122 harvesting nations, the greatest economic burden will be on the 21 nations that export more than 10 fish products, assuming that their regulatory program will include more export fisheries.
This proposed rule offers harvesting nations time to develop their regulatory program. Additionally, the consultative process and potential for financial and technological assistance, will aid harvesting nations in meeting the requirements of these regulations. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the
Under the proposed rule, NMFS would classify foreign fisheries based on the extent that the fishing gear and methods used interact with marine mammals. After notification from NMFS, harvesting nations desiring to export fish and fish products to the United States must apply for and receive a comparability finding for its exempt and export fisheries as identified in the List of Foreign Fisheries. Such a finding would indicate that marine mammal protection measures have been implemented in the fisheries that are comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program. In the event of trade restrictive measures being imposed for specific fish products, certain other fish products eligible for entry from the affected nation may be required to have a certification of admissibility in order to be admitted into the United States.
This proposed rule does not apply directly to any U.S. small business as the rulemaking applies with regard to imports of fish and fish products. The universe of potentially indirectly affected industries includes the following: U.S. seafood processors, importers, retailers, and wholesalers. The exact volume and value of product, and the number of jobs supported primarily by imports within the processing, wholesale and retail sectors cannot be ascertained based on available information. In general, however, the dominant position of imported seafood in the U.S. supply chain is indicative of the number U.S. businesses that rely on seafood harvested by foreign entities.
This proposed action contains new collection-of-information, involving limited reporting and record keeping, or
NMFS analyzed several alternatives under the EA for reducing mortality of marine mammals in fishing operations. Of those alternatives, the proposed rule (which is based on the EA preferred alternative) is the one that offers the most flexibility while being compliant with the provisions of the MMPA and U.S. obligations under the World Trade Organization, and thus was the one that could be considered in the analysis to minimize adverse impacts on small entities. The flexibility offered under the proposed rule allows harvesting nations to adopt a variety of alternatives to assess and reduce marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury, provided the alternatives are comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program. The flexibility should reduce burdens on small entities that import fish and fish products. One alternative to the proposed rule is the no action alternative, where NMFS would not promulgate regulations to implement the international provisions of the MMPA. This alternative to the proposed rule may demonstrate the least burden or economic impact to small entities. However, since the international provisions of the MMPA are statutory requirements, NOAA Fisheries does not have discretion to implement the no action alternative.
The proposed rule also demonstrates the U.S. commitment to achieving the conservation and sustainable management of marine mammals consistent with the statutory requirement of section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA. Additionally, the increased data collection that may result from the proposed regulations could assist in global stock assessments of marine mammals and improve our scientific understanding of these species. Finally, the proposed regulations should help ensure that the United States is not importing fisheries products harvested by nations that engage in the unsustainable bycatch of marine mammals in waters within and beyond any national jurisdiction.
No U.S. industrial sector is likely to be directly affected by the rulemaking. However, indirect effects may result in temporary and long-term responses that may be both positive and negative for various sectors of the U.S. seafood supply chain. Although over 90 percent of the edible seafood consumed annually in the United States is imported, the United States imports from over 120 nations. Given the number of nations exporting fish and fish products to the U.S. market and the volume of products supplied, domestic importers, retailers, wholesalers, and processors should be able to locate substitute or alternative sources of fish and fish products for those fisheries that fail to receive a comparability finding. However, it is possible that a substitute product will be more expensive or otherwise less preferable to a prohibited foreign fish or fish product. NMFS seeks comment on the costs, if any, incurred by U.S. entities that must find alternative sources for prohibited foreign fish and fish products.
Although U.S. entities are not directly impacted by this rule, they may experience some indirect effects from this rule. The indirect effects of import prohibitions may cause short term disruptions in the flow of seafood imports potentially impacting U.S. businesses. NMFS does not anticipate that national benefits and costs would change significantly in the long-term as a result of the implementation of the proposed alternatives. Therefore, NMFS anticipates that the impacts on U.S. businesses engaged in trading, processing, or retailing seafood will likely be minimal.
This proposed action does not duplicate, overlap or conflict with any other Federal rules.
It is the policy of the Department of Commerce, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the Instructions section. All comments must be received by midnight on the day of the close of the comment period.
We are particularly interested in comments concerning the following questions:
1. Are there fisheries that are likely to be subject to prohibitions under this rule and, if so, what are the potential economic impacts on small businesses and consumers?
2. Is the five year exemption period an appropriate amount of time to allow harvesting nations to comply with the requirements of this rule?
3. Is four years an appropriate amount of time for the duration of a comparability finding?
4. Is the rule and corresponding notice of an information collection clear in regards to the type of documentation that would be required for harvesting nations to demonstrate the requirement that they have prohibited the intentional and incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals?
5. Is there a definition of “reasonable proof” that is used by another Federal government agency that would be appropriate to incorporate into this rule?
This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. The information collection in this proposed rule would revise a collection-of-information requirement previously approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0651 (Certification of Admissibility). The revision would add a new category to the certification requirements for exports of fishery products to the United States from a nation's export fishery that have received a comparability finding under the procedures for evaluating export fisheries set forth in this proposed rule but are exporting fish and fish products similar to export fisheries that have failed to obtain a comparability finding. The Assistant Administrator may require that fish and fish products from such nation's other export fisheries could be admitted into the United States if the exporting nation certifies that the products were not harvested in the fishery for which a comparability finding was not issued.
The public reporting burden for the proposed requirement has been estimated, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information per response. NMFS estimates that the time to complete the Certification of Admissibility Form would be 10 minutes. In the event that import restrictions are imposed under these new procedures, additional responses by foreign exporters and U.S.
Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The burden associated with the application for a comparability finding and the progress reports are not presently analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Nonetheless, we recognize that these collections of information pose regulatory burdens for harvesting nations and possibly affected fisheries and seek comment on the potential cost of these provisions, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information.
Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the Director, Office of International Affairs (see
If this revision to the collection-of-information requirement under Control Number 0648-0651 is approved by OMB, the table of approved NOAA information collections that appears at 15 CFR part 902 would be amended accordingly.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Marine Mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 216 are proposed to be amended as follows:
44 U.S.C. 3501
(b) * * *
16 U.S.C. 1361
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(1) Ten percent or less of any marine mammal stock's bycatch limit; or
(2) More than 10 percent of any marine mammal stock's bycatch limit, yet that fishery by itself removes 1 percent or less of that stock's bycatch limit annually; or
(3) Where reliable information has not been provided by the harvesting nation on the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals caused by the commercial fishing operation, the Assistant Administrator may determine whether the likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury is “remote” by evaluating information concerning factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or other factors at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator. A foreign fishery will not be classified as an exempt fishery unless the Assistant
(1) Exclusive economic zones or territorial sea of the United States and one or more other coastal States; or
(2) Exclusive economic zone or territorial sea of the United States and on the high seas.
(h)
(ii) Accordingly, it is unlawful for any person to import, or attempt to import, into the United States for commercial purposes any fish or fish product if such fish or fish product:
(A) Was caught or harvested in a fishery that does not have a valid comparability finding in effect at the time of import; or
(B) Is not accompanied by a Certification of Admissibility where such Certification is required pursuant to paragraph (h)(9)(iv) of this section or by such other documentation as the Assistant Administrator may identify and announce in the
(iii) It is unlawful for any person, including exporters, transshippers, importers, processors, or wholesalers/distributors to possess, sell, purchase, offer for sale, re-export, transport, or ship in the United States, any fish or fish product imported in violation of this section.
(2)
(A) For the purposes of paragraph (h) of this section,
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) The prohibitions of paragraph (h)(1) of this section shall not apply during the exemption period.
(iii) Section 216.24(h) shall not apply with respect to incidental take of delphinids in purse seine fishing for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean or large-scale driftnet fishing. Section 216.24(f) shall govern restrictions on importation and sale of fish and fish products caught or harvested, and the taking of delphinids, in the course of commercial purse seine fishing operations for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and fish and the importation of fish products harvested by using a large-scale driftnet.
(3)
(i) Shall periodically analyze imports of fish and fish products and identify commercial fishing operations that are the source of exports of such fish and fish products to the United States that have or may have incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in the course of their commercial fishing operations.
(A) For the purposes of paragraph (h) of this section, a
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) Shall notify, in consultation with the Secretary of State, each harvesting nation that has commercial fishing operations identified pursuant to paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section and request that within 90 days of notification the harvesting nation submit reliable information about the commercial fishing operations identified, including as relevant the number of participants, number of vessels, gear type, target species, area of operation, fishing season, any information regarding the frequency of marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury and any programs (including any relevant laws, decrees, regulations or measures) to assess marine mammal populations and to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in those fisheries or prohibit the intentional killing or injury of marine mammals;
(iii) Shall review each harvesting nation's submission, evaluate any information it contains (including descriptions of its regulatory programs) and, if necessary, request additional information; and
(iv) May consider other readily available and relevant information about such commercial fishing operations and the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals, including: Fishing vessel records; reports of on-board fishery observers; information from off-loading facilities, port-side officials, enforcement agents, transshipment vessel workers and fish importers; government vessel registries; regional fisheries management organizations documents and statistical document programs; and appropriate certification programs. Other sources may include published literature and reports on fishing vessels with incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals from government agencies; foreign, state, and local governments; regional fishery management organizations; nongovernmental organizations; industry organizations; academic institutions; and citizens and citizen groups.
(4)
(A) A proposed List of Foreign Fisheries by harvesting nation for notice and comment; and
(B) A final List of Foreign Fisheries, effective upon publication in the
(ii) To the extent that information is available, the List of Foreign Fisheries shall:
(A) Classify each commercial fishing operation that is the source of exports of fish and fish products to the United States based on the definitions for export fishery and exempt fishery set forth in § 216.3 of this part and identified in the List of Foreign Fisheries by harvesting nation and other defining factors including geographic location of harvest, gear-type, target species or a combination thereof;
(B) Include fishing gear type, target species, and number of vessels or other entities engaged in each commercial fishing operation;
(C) List the marine mammals that interact with each commercial fishing operation and indicate the level of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in each commercial fishing operation;
(D) Provide a description of the harvesting nation's programs to assess marine mammal stocks and estimate and reduce marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury in its export fisheries; and
(E) List the harvesting nations that prohibit, in the course of commercial fishing operations that are the source of exports to the United States, the intentional mortality or serious injury of marine mammals unless the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal is imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in immediate danger.
(5)
(ii) The Assistant Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may consult with harvesting nations for the purposes of providing notifications of deadlines under this section, ascertaining or reviewing the progress of the harvesting nation's development, adoption, implementation, or enforcement of its regulatory program governing the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations for an export fishery, supplementing or clarifying information needed in conjunction with the List of Foreign Fisheries in paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) of this section, the progress report in paragraph (h)(10) of this section or an application for or reconsideration of a comparability finding in paragraph (h)(6) and (h)(8) of this section.
(iii) The Assistant Administrator shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative, consult with any
(6)
(ii)
(iii)
(A) For an exempt or export fishery, the harvesting nation:
(
(
(B) For an export fishery, the harvesting nation maintains a regulatory program with respect to the fishery that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program with respect to incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations, in particular by maintaining a regulatory program that includes, or effectively achieves comparable results as, the conditions in paragraphs (h)(6)(iii)(C), (D) or (E) of this section as applicable (including for transboundary stocks).
(C)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(D)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(E)
(
(
(
(
(7)
(i) U.S. implementation of its regulatory program for similar marine mammal stocks and similar fisheries (
(ii) The extent to which the harvesting nation has successfully implemented measures in the export fishery to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals caused by the harvesting nation's export fisheries to levels below the bycatch limit;
(iii) Whether the measures adopted by the harvesting nation for its export fishery have reduced or will likely reduce the cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury of each marine mammal stock below the bycatch limit, and the progress of the regulatory program toward achieving its objectives;
(iv) Other relevant facts and circumstances, which may include the history and nature of interactions with marine mammals in this export fishery, whether the level of incidental mortality and serious injury resulting from the fishery or fisheries exceeds the bycatch limit for a marine mammal stock, the population size and trend of the marine mammal stock, and the population level impacts of the incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in a harvesting nation's export fisheries and the conservation status of those marine mammal stocks where available;
(v) The record of consultations under paragraph (h)(5) of this section with the harvesting nation, results of these consultations, and actions taken by the harvesting nation and under any applicable intergovernmental agreement or regional fishery management organization to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in its export fisheries;
(vi) Information gathered during onsite inspection by U.S. government officials of a fishery's operations;
(vii) For export fisheries operating on the high seas under an applicable intergovernmental agreement or regional fishery management organization to which the United States is a party, the harvesting nation's record of implementation of or compliance with measures adopted by that regional fishery management organization or intergovernmental agreement for data collection, incidental mortality and serious injury mitigation or the conservation and management of marine mammals; whether the harvesting nation is a party or cooperating non-party to such intergovernmental agreement or regional fishery management organization; the record of United States implementation of such measures; and whether the United States has imposed additional measures on its fleet not required by an intergovernmental agreement or regional fishery management organization; or
(viii) For export fisheries operating on the high seas under an applicable intergovernmental agreement or regional fisheries management organization to which the United States is not a party, the harvesting nation's implementation of and compliance with measures, adopted by that regional fisheries management organization or intergovernmental agreement, and any additional measures implemented by the harvesting nation for data collection, incidental mortality and serious injury mitigation or the conservation and management of marine mammals and the extent to which such measures are comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program for similar fisheries.
(8)
(ii)
(A) Issuing a comparability finding;
(B) Denying a comparability finding with an explanation for the reasons for the denial of such comparability finding; and
(C) Specify the fish and fish products that will be subject to import prohibitions under paragraphs (h)(1) and (9) of this section on account of a denial of a comparability finding and the effective date of such import prohibitions.
(iii)
(
(
(B) The Assistant Administrator shall take into account any information it receives from the harvesting nation and issue a final comparability finding determination, notifying the harvesting nation pursuant to paragraph (h)(8)(ii) of this section of its determination and, if a denial or termination, an explanation of the reasons for the denial or termination of the comparability finding.
(C) A preliminary denial or termination of a comparability finding shall not result in import prohibitions pursuant to paragraphs (h)(1) and (9) of this section.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(B) Upon notification the Assistant Administrator shall issue a provisional comparability finding allowing such imports for a period not to exceed 12 months.
(C) At least 120 days prior to the expiration of the provisional comparability finding the harvesting nation must submit to the Assistant Administrator the reliable information specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section and the application and the applicable documentary evidence required pursuant to paragraph (h)(6)(i) of this section.
(D) Prior to expiration of the provisional comparability finding, the Assistant Administrator shall review the application and information provided and classify the commercial fishing operation as either an exempt or export fishery in accordance with paragraphs (h)(3)(iii) through (iv) and (h)(4)(ii) of this section and determine whether to issue the harvesting nation a comparability finding for the fishery in accordance with paragraph (h)(6)(ii) through (iii) of this section.
(E) If the harvesting nation submits the reliable information specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section at least 180 days prior to expiration of the provisional comparability finding, the Assistant Administrator will review that information and classify the fishery as either an exempt or export fishery.
(vii)
(B) After such review or reconsideration and consultation with the harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator shall, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the basis for the comparability finding no longer applies, terminate a comparability finding.
(C) The Assistant Administrator shall notify in writing the harvesting nation and publish in the
(9)
(ii)
(B) A harvesting nation denied a comparability finding for a fishery may re-apply for a comparability finding at any time submitting an application to the Assistant Administrator, along with documentary evidence demonstrating that the harvesting nation has met the conditions specified in paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of this section, including, as applicable, reasonable proof as to the effects on marine mammals of the commercial fishing technology in use in the fishery for the fish or fish products exported from such nation to the United States.
(C) The Assistant Administrator shall make a determination whether to issue the harvesting nation that has re-applied for a comparability finding for the fishery within 90 days from the submission of complete information to the Assistant Administrator. The Assistant Administrator shall issue a comparability finding for the fishery for a specified period where the Assistant Administrator finds that the harvesting nation meets the applicable conditions in paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of this section, subject to the additional consideration for a comparability finding in paragraph (h)(7) of this section.
(D) Upon issuance of a comparability finding to the harvesting nation with respect to the fishery and notification in writing to the harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretaries of Treasury and Homeland Security, shall publish in the
(iii)
(B) The Assistant Administrator shall notify the harvesting nation of the fisheries and the fish and fish products to be accompanied by a certification of admissibility and provide the necessary documents and instruction.
(C) The Assistant Administrator in cooperation with the Secretaries of Treasury and Homeland Security, shall as part of the
(D) For each shipment, the certification of admissibility must be properly completed and signed by a duly authorized official or agent of the harvesting nation and subject to validation by a responsible official(s) designated by the Assistant Administrator. The certification must also be signed by the importer of record and submitted in a format (electronic facsimile [fax], the Internet, etc.) specified by the Assistant Administrator.
(iv)
(B) No fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition under paragraphs (h)(1) and (9) of this section, may be imported into the United States from any intermediary nation.
(C) Within 30 days of publication of the
(D) Within 60 days from the date of notification, a nation notified pursuant to paragraph (h)(9)(iv)(C) of this section must certify to the Assistant Administrator that it:
(
(
(E) The intermediary nation must provide documentary evidence to support its certification including information demonstrating that:
(
(
(F) No later than 120 days after a notification pursuant to paragraph (h)(9)(iv)(C) of this section, the Assistant Administrator will review the documentary evidence provided by the intermediary nation under paragraphs (h)(9)(iv)(D) and (E) of this section and determine based on that information or other readily available information whether the intermediary nation imports, or offers to import into the United States, fish and fish products subject import prohibitions and, if so, whether the intermediary nation has procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products from the intermediary to the United States do not contain fish or fish products subject to import prohibitions under paragraphs (h)(1) and (9) of this section, and notify the intermediary nation of its determination.
(G) If the Assistant Administrator determines that the intermediary nation does not have procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products from the intermediary to the United States do not contain fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition under paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(9)(i) of this section, the Assistant Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security, will file with the
(H) The Assistant Administrator will review determinations under this paragraph upon the request of an intermediary nation. Such requests must be accompanied by specific and detailed supporting information or documentation indicating that a review or reconsideration is warranted. Based upon such information and other relevant information, the Assistant Administrator may determine that the intermediary nation should no longer be subject to an import prohibition under paragraph (h)(9)(iv)(G) of this section. Based on that determination the Assistant Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security, may lift an import prohibition under this paragraph and publish notification of such action in the
(10)
(A) Develop, adopt and implement its regulatory program; and
(B) Meet the conditions in paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of this section, including with respect to reducing or maintaining incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals below the bycatch limit for its fisheries.
(ii) The progress report should include the methods the harvesting nation is using to obtain information in support of a comparability finding and a certification by the harvesting nation of the accuracy and authenticity of the information contained in the progress report.
(iii) The first progress report would be due two years prior to the end of exemption period and every four years thereafter on or before July 31.
(iv) The Assistant Administrator may review the progress report to monitor progress made by a harvesting nation in developing its regulatory program or to reconsider a comparability finding in accordance with paragraph (h)(8)(vi) of this section.
(11)
(i) Provide appropriate assistance to harvesting nations identified by the Assistant Administrator under paragraph (h)(5) of this section with respect to the financial or technical means to develop and implement the requirements of this section;
(ii) Undertake, where appropriate, cooperative research on marine mammal assessments for abundance, methods to estimate incidental mortality and serious injury and technologies and techniques to reduce marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury in export fisheries;
(iii) Encourage and facilitate, as appropriate, the voluntary transfer of appropriate technology on mutually agreed terms to assist harvesting nations in qualifying for a comparability finding under paragraph (h)(6) of this section; and
(iv) Initiate, through the Secretary of State, negotiations for the development of bilateral or multinational agreements with harvesting nations to conserve marine mammals and reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations.
(12) The Assistant Administrator shall ensure, in consultation with the Office of the United States Trade Representative, that any action taken under this section, including any action to deny a comparability finding or to prohibit imports, is consistent with the international obligations of the United States, including under the World Trade Organization Agreement.
Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The Administration for Children and Families proposes to revise the Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information System regulations. This proposed rule will remove the requirement for a single comprehensive system and allow title IV-E agencies to implement systems that support current child welfare practice. It also proposes to establish requirements around design, data quality, and data exchange standards in addition to aligning these regulations with current and emerging technology developments to support the administration of title IV-E and IV-B programs under the Social Security Act.
Written comments on this NPRM must be received on or before October 13, 2015 to be considered.
You may submit comments electronically via the Internet at
Comments should be specific, address issues raised by the proposed rule, propose alternatives where appropriate, explain reasons for any objections or recommended changes, and reference the specific section of the proposed rule that is being addressed. All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public. Although commenters should include contact information in any correspondence, the comments themselves should not include personally identifiable information or confidential business or financial information as we post all submitted comments without change to
We will not acknowledge receipt of the comments we receive. However, we will review and consider all comments that are germane and are received during the comment period. We will respond to these comments in the preamble of the final rule.
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section of this preamble. A copy of these comments also may be sent to the Department representative listed above.
Terry Watt, Director, Division of State Systems, Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, (202) 690-8177 or by email at
Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern Time.
The preamble to the NPRM is organized as follows:
The Statewide Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) regulations published in 1993 provided states with enhanced funding to build a single comprehensive system supporting all child welfare case management activities for public and private child welfare workers in the state. This was in response to 1993 amendments to the Social Security Act (the Act) which provided title IV-E funding for statewide automated child welfare information systems. In the intervening years, child welfare practice changed considerably. It became challenging for title IV-E agencies (as defined at 1355.20) to support practices that may vary within a jurisdiction with a single comprehensive information system. Additionally, information technology (IT) has advanced. The advancements in IT provide title IV-E agencies with tools to rapidly share data among systems supporting multiple health and human service programs with increased efficiency. To address these practice challenges and IT changes, and allow agencies to improve their systems, our proposal removes the requirement for a single comprehensive system and supports the use of improved technology to better support current child welfare practice. With this flexibility, title IV-E agencies can build less expensive modular systems that more closely mirror their practice models while supporting quality data. Furthermore, IT tools now can be effectively scaled to support smaller jurisdictions such as federally-recognized Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia (tribes) at a reasonable cost.
Consistent with changes in child welfare practice and advancements in IT, section 6 of the President's Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, called for retrospective analyses of existing rules “that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” As such, we placed the SACWIS regulations on the list of Administration for Children and Families (ACF) regulations to retrospectively review and determined that revising the SACWIS regulations would be in keeping with Executive Order 13563.
The statute at 42 U.S.C. 674(a)(3)(C) and (D) provides the authority for title IV-E funding for the planning, design, development, installation, and operation of a data collection and information retrieval system and the requirements a title IV-E agency must meet to receive federal financial participation (FFP). The statute at 42 U.S.C. 674(c) further specifies the expenditures eligible for FFP.
This rule proposes requirements for Comprehensive Child Welfare Information Systems (CCWIS). The primary changes to the current regulations are: (1) Providing title IV-E agencies with flexibility to determine the size, scope, and functionality of their information system; (2) allowing the CCWIS to obtain data required by this proposed rule from external information systems so that a copy of that data is then stored and managed in the CCWIS; (3) emphasizing data quality and requiring a new data quality plan; (4) requiring additional bi-directional data exchanges, and use of electronic data exchange standards that strengthen program integrity; and (5) promoting more efficient and less expensive development of reliable systems, that follow industry design standards, including development of independent, reusable modules. Because these changes permit title IV-E agencies to build systems fundamentally different from current Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS), we propose a new name for systems meeting the proposed requirements: Comprehensive Child Welfare Information Systems (CCWIS).
Complete, timely, and accurate data supports the goals of child safety, wellbeing, and permanency. Data informs actions and guides decisions at all levels of the agency. Workers use data to manage cases, monitor services, and assess client progress while supervisors and administrators use it to monitor and direct work, manage resources, evaluate program effectiveness, control costs, and estimate funding needs.
To support the collection, management, and dissemination of high quality data, the proposed rule requires CCWIS to maintain (store and manage) certain required data for federal reporting and produce all required title IV-E agency reports. To meet this expectation, external information systems that collect required data must electronically share data with CCWIS so that a copy of the required data is then maintained in CCWIS. In addition, title IV-E agencies must also develop and maintain a comprehensive data quality plan to ensure that the title IV-E agency and “child welfare contributing agencies” (as defined in proposed § 1355.51) coordinate to support complete, timely, accurate, and consistent data. As part of the data quality plan, we propose to require that the title IV-E agency actively monitor and manage data quality. This proposal also requires a CCWIS to include new bi-directional data exchanges. We propose to require bi-directional data exchanges with any systems used by child welfare contributing agencies for child welfare case management activities. We also propose, where practicable, bi-directional data exchanges with other systems such as court systems, education systems, and Medicaid claims systems. We propose to require the use of electronic data exchange standards that strengthen program integrity.
The proposed rule would provide title IV-E agencies with flexibility to build systems that align more closely to their business needs and practices by allowing each agency to determine the size, scope, and functionality of their information system. Finally, we prioritize more efficient and less expensive development of systems that follow industry design standards, including development of independent, reusable modules. These provisions allow title IV-E agencies to customize CCWIS to efficiently, economically, and effectively provide the high quality data needed to support child welfare goals.
Changes in this proposed rule directly benefit state and tribal title IV-E agencies. Specifically, we propose to allow title IV-E agencies to tailor CCWIS to their administrative, programmatic, and technical environments to meet their own business needs. The proposed system interoperability and bi-directional data exchange requirements allow a CCWIS to use and benefit from data collected or produced by other systems. By proposing similar design requirements as promulgated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the proposal encourages sharing system modules both within and across health and human service programs, which provides savings opportunities for all participating partners. These requirements may also benefit title IV-E agencies by yielding cost savings in the long term.
The proposed regulations minimize burden on title IV-E agencies, including tribal title IV-E agencies, by providing flexibility when designing systems. In particular, title IV-E agencies have the flexibility to leverage the investment made in existing S/TACWIS and non-S/TACWIS systems and to determine the size, scope, and functionality included in their CCWIS system. Therefore, this proposal allows title IV-E agencies to implement systems in a manner that does not impose a large burden or costs on the state or tribal agency. Implementing a CCWIS is voluntary, therefore any costs resulting from implementing new or modified systems are the result of choices title IV-E agencies make when implementing requirements in this proposed rule. We have determined that costs to title IV-E agencies as a result of this rule will not be significant and the benefits and potential cost savings justify costs associated with this proposed rule.
ACF published the existing regulations at 45 CFR 1355.50 through 1355.57 in December 1993 in response to statutory amendments to title IV-E to provide 75 percent title IV-E funding for federal fiscal years 1994 through 1996. This funding was made available for costs related to planning, design, development, and installation of statewide automated child welfare information systems. The legislation also provided an enhanced cost allocation to states so that title IV-E would absorb SACWIS costs to support foster and adopted children, regardless of their eligibility for title IV-E funding. Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 extended the 75 percent enhanced funding through fiscal year 1997. Congress did not extend enhanced funding after 1997. As such, the current funding level is 50 percent for systems described in 474(a)(3)(C) of the Act, that:
• Meet the requirements for an Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS);
• Interface with the state child abuse and neglect automated systems to the extent practicable;
• Interface with and retrieve information from a state's automated title IV-A system, to the extent practicable; and
• Provide more efficient, economical and effective administration of title IV-B and IV-E programs.
Prior to the passage of Public Law 104-193, which authorized SACWIS,
The 1993 regulations were amended in 2012 to include tribes. These current regulations provide title IV-E agencies with the option to implement a S/TACWIS. If a title IV-E agency elects to implement a S/TACWIS, the system must be a comprehensive automated case management tool that meets the needs of all staff (including case workers and their supervisors, whether employed by the state, tribe, county or contracted private providers) involved in foster care and adoptions assistance case management. The S/TACWIS must be the sole automated child welfare case management tool used by staff. Staff must enter all case management information into S/TACWIS so that it holds the title IV-E agency's “official case record”—a complete, current, accurate, and unified case management history on all children and families serviced by the agency. Currently the system must support the reporting of AFCARS, the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD), and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) data sets. The system must have bi-directional electronic data exchanges with systems supporting the title IV-A, title IV-D, and title XIX programs. S/TACWIS must also exchange data with the system supporting child abuse and neglect reporting and investigations, although agencies may meet this requirement by integrating these functions into the system. S/TACWIS must also collect and manage the information needed to facilitate the delivery of child welfare support services, including family support and family preservation.
On October 7, 2008, the President signed the
This proposed regulation is being issued under the general authority of section 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302) which requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to publish regulations that may be necessary for the efficient administration of the functions for which she is responsible under the Act. The statute at 42 U.S.C. 674(a)(3)(C) and (D) provides the authority for title IV-E funding for the planning, design, development, installation, operation, and maintenance of a data collection and information retrieval system and the requirements a title IV-E agency must meet to receive federal financial participation (FFP). The statute at 42 U.S.C. 674(c) further specifies the expenditures eligible for FFP.
Starting in 2009, the Children's Bureau (CB) initiated a detailed analysis of the S/TACWIS regulations to assess if there was a need to change them to better utilize newer technology and support the changing child welfare program. Our analysis also considered whether modifications were necessary to address changing business practice models, including the expanded use of private case managers, and approaches to provide flexibility to title IV-E agencies in implementing child welfare systems.
To inform our efforts in developing this NPRM we solicited ideas from the public through a
CB publicized the 2010 FR Notice through electronic mailing lists used routinely by this agency, and other communications channels with the child welfare and IT communities. We conducted a series of conference calls with interested stakeholder groups to discuss the 2010 FR Notice, answer questions, and encourage the submission of comments. We conducted conference calls with state child welfare information system managers and program representatives, tribal child welfare representatives, private child welfare agencies, advocacy groups, and IT vendors. In response to the 2010 FR Notice and our outreach efforts, we received 48 comments from state child welfare agencies, private providers and provider associations, advocacy groups, IT vendors, tribes and tribal associations, a local public agency, a state's welfare directors' association, a state-level office of court administration, and a university research center.
The comments we received offered thoughtful insights into the experience of states, tribes, and providers using various SACWIS applications. The following themes emerged from the comments:
• A S/TACWIS should serve as a central repository for child welfare data, with the content available to all users.
• Instead of describing S/TACWIS in functional terms, several commenters suggested that the federal regulations define expectations for required data elements.
• Commenters strongly supported an emphasis on data quality, consistency, and integrity.
• Commenters recommended a focus on data that addresses mandatory federal requirements, and those data elements used for federal reporting and reviews, as well as data needed for state and tribal operations and program management.
• Commenters suggested that data conforming to S/TACWIS standards and representing common data elements could be uploaded to a data repository from any source, whether a case management system used by a contracted services provider, or from an ancillary state or tribal system, thus eliminating the need to re-enter data into external systems.
• Recognizing that S/TACWIS technology approaches are nearly two decades old, multiple commenters suggested that new regulations allow the adoption of new and emerging technologies, and be written in such a way as to allow for the future adoption of new technologies for data entry, storage, access, and sharing.
• Commenters noted that requiring all users to use a single system did not encourage flexibility and innovation. Contracted private providers with different business processes cannot use proprietary systems designed to support those processes to manage child welfare case management, as the regulations require them to use S/TACWIS.
• Commenters expressed concern that a revised regulation would force them to build a new case management system. A number of states expressed a desire that any new regulations allow them to continue to use their existing system.
The full text of the public comments in response to the 2010 FR Notice is available for review at:
In the April 5, 2011
In response, some commenters noted that child welfare management information systems should play an important role in federal monitoring as they provide valuable quantitative data. However, other commenters cited data quality and integrity issues that could result in inaccurate data for baseline outcomes and measuring improvements. Commenters also observed that there could be a delay between changing child welfare practices and the system enhancements needed to support the changes. The full text of the public comments in response to the 2011 FR Notice is available for review at:
These proposed regulations address the comments regarding the critical role of flexibility in a child welfare information system that must provide quality data to support the federal effort to monitor child and family service programs.
The primary changes in this proposed rule are: (1) Providing title IV-E agencies with flexibility to determine the size, scope, and functionality of their information system; (2) allowing the CCWIS to obtain required data from external information systems so that a copy of that data is then stored and managed in the CCWIS; (3) emphasizing data quality and requiring a new data quality plan; (4) requiring new bi-directional data exchanges and use of electronic data exchange standards that strengthen program integrity; and (5) promoting more efficient and less expensive development of reliable systems that follow industry design standards including development of independent, reusable modules.
First, we propose to provide title IV-E agencies with flexibility to build systems that align more closely to their business needs and practices by allowing each title IV-E agency to determine the size, scope, and functionality of their information system. This flexibility allows title IV-E agencies to design systems tailored to their administrative, programmatic, and technical environments. A title IV-E agency may transition a current system to CCWIS, become a non-CCWIS, or build a new CCWIS. The new CCWIS may: Contain all the functions required to collect and maintain CCWIS data (similar to a current S/TACWIS), be little more than a data repository that collects and exchanges data captured in other systems, or fall somewhere in between these two extremes. This approach also accommodates different size states and tribes, as well as state agencies that are either state or county administered.
Second, data may be obtained from external information systems so that a copy of that data is then stored and managed in CCWIS. Although this proposed rule requires CCWIS to maintain (store and manage) the required data, it allows the CCWIS to obtain required data that is captured in external information systems. This is an important change from S/TACWIS—because current rules require S/TACWIS to collect and maintain the data,
Third, this proposal emphasizes data quality and requires a new data quality plan. We propose emphasizing data quality by requiring title IV-E agencies to develop and maintain a comprehensive data quality plan to monitor the title IV-E agency, and if applicable child welfare contributing agencies, system(s) and processes to support complete, timely, accurate, and consistent data. The IV-E agency must also actively monitor, manage, and enhance data quality. Improving data quality is vital for all child welfare program activities. Reliable data, no matter who collects it or where it is collected, supports the goals of child safety, wellbeing, and permanency. Therefore, reliable data is a critical component of case work, supervision, program management, evaluation, research, and policy development. This proposed regulation also includes new requirements to ensure that a CCWIS supports data quality by requiring agency reviews of automated and manual data collection processes, and by requiring the title IV-E agency to provide continuous data quality improvement, based on its review findings. Some of the data quality requirements include: Automatically monitoring the CCWIS data for missing data, generating reports and alerts when entered data does not meet expected timeframes, automatically providing data to and automatically requesting needed data from child welfare contributing systems, and regular review by the title IV-E agency to ensure that CCWIS data accurately documents all cases, clients, services, and activities.
Fourth, this proposal requires a CCWIS to include new bi-directional data exchanges and use of electronic data exchange standards that strengthen program integrity. The proposed rule continues to require, where practicable, bi-directional data exchanges with title IV-A, title IV-D, title XIX, and child abuse/neglect systems, as in S/TACWIS rules. We propose to continue to require bi-directional data exchanges with systems processing payments and claims and with systems generating information needed for title IV-E eligibility determinations, if the CCWIS does not perform these functions. We also propose to require, to the extent practicable, title IV-E agencies add new bi-directional data exchanges with other systems such as court systems, education systems, and Medicaid claims systems. Adding these new bi-directional data exchanges will contribute to efforts to improve outcomes for children and assist title IV-E agencies in collecting more comprehensive data on each child served by the title IV-E agency. In addition, we propose that any child welfare contributing agencies using a system other than CCWIS and approved by the title IV-E agency for child welfare case management (for example, a proprietary system built or licensed by a private agency to manage its child welfare cases) must have a bi-directional data exchange with CCWIS. This allows child welfare contributing agencies to enter data in their own systems and then exchange that data with the CCWIS instead of requiring the child welfare contributing agency to enter data directly into the CCWIS. This bi-directional data exchange ensures that data collected by one child welfare
Finally, the proposal prioritizes more efficient and less expensive development of reliable systems that follow industry design standards, including development of independent, reusable modules. This proposal provides an incentive for title IV-E agencies to build independent plug-and-play modules that may be shared and reused by other states, tribes, and agencies. This proposal requires CCWIS automated functions to be built as independent modules that may be reused in other systems or be replaced by newer modules with more capabilities. The title IV-E agency must follow industry standards when designing and building the automated modules. Our proposal is similar to the design requirements established by the CMS for Federal Funding for Medicaid Eligibility Determination and Enrollment Activities. Proposing design requirements similar to CMS will increase the potential for re-use of automated functions across related health and human service programs.
In developing this proposed rule, we were mindful of the Administration's emphasis on flexibility as a guiding principle when considering ways to better accomplish statutory goals. Therefore, our proposal includes a waiver process for title IV-E agencies to submit, for ACF's review and approval, their proposed new approaches to designing IT systems. We included this process to accommodate new design approaches that are not anticipated by our design proposal. ACF may waive the design requirements for CCWIS automated functions if the title IV-E agency presents a business case for a more efficient, economical, and effective design approach.
This proposal also provides flexibility with a transition period of 24 months during which the title IV-E agency with a S/TACWIS or non-S/TACWIS project (as defined in these proposed regulations) may decide whether to: Transition the S/TACWIS or non-S/TACWIS to a CCWIS, become a non-CCWIS or build a new CCWIS. The state or tribe does not need to finish the transition within the 24 months to be a CCWIS. A new CCWIS may be built at any time.
Title IV-E agencies report that systems built under the S/TACWIS regulations improve program administration by automating work processes, providing workers with data to manage cases, and generating reports for supervisors and administrators. The goal of our proposal is to assist title IV-E agencies in developing systems that further contribute to improving outcomes for children and families with more flexible, modernized systems that support the efficient, economical, and effective administration of the plans approved under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Act. Compliance with provisions in the final rule would be determined through ACF review and approval of a state's or tribe's Advance Planning Documents (APD) or a Notice of Intent, where applicable, and through the use of federal monitoring.
The proposed revisions in this NPRM describe an approach fundamentally different from the current regulations. Considering the scope of the proposed changes, we determined that these revisions could not be effectively incorporated through section-by-section amendments. Therefore, our proposal would completely replace the current regulations. Where applicable, the Section-by-Section Discussion of the NPRM notes where we propose to retain requirements from the current regulations.
Our proposals support a change in the focus from the S/TACWIS function-based requirements to the CCWIS quality-data based requirements. This change is expected to provide additional flexibility to states and tribes to implement systems that meet their needs. This is now possible due to the changes in technology and service delivery models since 1993. We propose to carry forward the same principles as used in S/TACWIS but propose to include a new data focus:
• A CCWIS is expected to improve program management and administration by collecting and sharing data addressing all program services and case management requirements by meeting the requirements we propose in revised § 1355.52;
• The design is expected to appropriately apply modern computer technology; and
• The costs are expected to be reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial when compared to alternative solutions.
We propose to revise § 1355.50 to describe that the purpose of the proposed regulations in §§ 1355.50 through 1355.59 is to set forth the requirements for receiving federal financial participation (FFP) as authorized under section 474(a)(3)(C) and (D) and 474(c) of the Act for the planning, design, development, installation, operation, and maintenance of a comprehensive child welfare information system (CCWIS).
Implementing a CCWIS is optional. While the Act provides a favorable cost allocation for a CCWIS, the Act does not require that a title IV-E agency have a CCWIS. Title IV-E agencies with a data collection system that does not meet CCWIS requirements may qualify for funding as described at § 1356.60(d).
Consistent with the definition of title IV-E agency in § 1355.20, if a title IV-E agency chooses to implement a CCWIS, we propose that the requirements in §§ 1355.50 through 1355.59 apply to the title IV-E agency (either state or tribe) unless otherwise specified.
We propose to add a new § 1355.51 to provide definitions that apply to §§ 1355.50 through 1355.59. This section is new, as the current regulations provide no definitions specific to S/TACWIS. These definitions clarify the meaning of key terms and concepts applicable to these sections. See § 1355.20 for definitions of other terms used in these regulations.
We propose to add a definition of “approved activity” to new § 1355.51 and to define it as a project task that supports planning, designing, developing, installing, operating, or maintaining a CCWIS. The term applies to all CCWIS projects whether or not they are required to submit an Implementation APD.
This phrase is used in § 1355.57—Cost allocation for CCWIS projects.
We propose to add a definition of “automated function” to new § 1355.51 and to define it to mean a computerized process or collection of related processes to achieve a purpose or goal. This general definition may include a simple process, such as searching a list,
This phrase is used in § 1355.52—CCWIS project requirements, § 1355.53—CCWIS design requirements, § 1355.54—CCWIS options, and § 1355.57—Cost allocation for CCWIS projects.
We propose to add a definition of “child welfare contributing agency” to new § 1355.51 and to define this phrase as a public or private entity that, by contract or agreement with the title IV-E agency, provides child abuse and neglect investigations, placement, or child welfare case management (or any combination of these) to children and families.
This phrase is used in § 1355.52—CCWIS project requirements.
We propose to add a definition of “data exchange” and to define it to mean the automated, electronic submission or receipt of information, or both, between two automated data processing systems.
This phrase is used in § 1355.52—CCWIS project requirements and § 1355.54—CCWIS options. We discuss the details of the data exchanges in the preamble for § 1355.52(e).
We propose to add a definition of “data exchange standard” and to define it to mean the common data definitions, data formats, data values, and other guidelines that the state's or tribe's automated data processing systems follow when exchanging data. A data exchange standard provides all parties with information that is consistently understood and defined. We propose that the definition apply to the automated data exchange process rather than to specify how either party stores the data.
This phrase is used in § 1355.52—CCWIS project requirements.
We propose to add a definition of “new CCWIS project” and to define it as a project to build an automated data processing system meeting all requirements of §§ 1355.52 and 1355.53(a). All automated functions contained in such a system must be designed to meet the requirements of § 1355.53(a) unless exempted by § 1355.53(b)(2). This is different from S/TACWIS or non-S/TACWIS projects that are used as the basis for meeting the requirements of § 1355.52. Existing automated functions of S/TACWIS or non-S/TACWIS projects are exempt from the CCWIS design requirements in § 1355.53(a). If a project does not meet the definition of a S/TACWIS or non-S/TACWIS project as of the effective date of these regulations, and the agency elects to implement a system meeting the requirements of this section it is classified as a new CCWIS project.
This phrase is used in § 1355.56—Requirements for S/TACWIS and non-S/TACWIS projects during and after the transition period and § 1355.57—Cost allocation for CCWIS projects.
We propose to add a definition of active “non-S/TACWIS project.” We define this term because this is one type of an active project in which existing automated functions are exempt from the CCWIS design requirements in § 1355.53(a).
We propose to define a “non-S/TACWIS project” as an active automated data processing system or project that, prior to the effective date of these regulations, ACF has not classified as a S/TACWIS and for which: (1) ACF approved a development procurement; or (2) the applicable state or tribal agency approved a development procurement below the thresholds of 45 CFR 95.611(a); or (3) the operational automated data processing system provided the data for at least one AFCARS or NYTD file for submission to the federal system or systems designated by ACF to receive the report. By `active' automated data processing system or project, we mean that the system is being used as of the effective date of these regulations or that the state or tribe is designing, developing or implementing the system as of the effective date of the regulations.
The first proposed criterion requires the approval of development procurement documents (such as requests for proposals or requests for quotations) by ACF for procurements that exceed the thresholds as established in 45 CFR 95.611. The second proposed criterion requires the approval of development procurement documents by the state or tribal agency with authority to approve the documents when they are below the threshold of 45 CFR 95.611 requiring approval by ACF.
These two proposed criteria are clear measures of a project that has progressed beyond preliminary planning stages of information system development. To reach this point the agency has defined the project's purpose, goals, and scope. The agency has also produced the clear, specific, and detailed requirements and other documentation necessary for vendors to develop realistic cost and technical proposals. Review and approval of the documents by the appropriate federal, state, or tribal authority provides assurances that the plans to develop a non-S/TACWIS automated data processing system are well conceived and meet the standards of the approving authority. This formal approval of development procurement documents is an early indicator of the title IV-E agency's commitment to build a system that qualifies the project as a non-S/TACWIS project.
The third proposed criterion to classify an application as a non-SACWIS is an operational system that has correctly gathered and formatted data for the submission of required title IV-E program reports. Having successfully submitted required reports, the agency has demonstrated that the application is an active automated data processing system and the system may be classified as a non-SACWIS project.
The two data collections are: AFCARS and, for states, NYTD. To be considered an operational non-S/TACWIS project, the title IV-E agency must have used the system to successfully provide the data needed to be submitted for either report during the most recent reporting period prior to the effective date of the final rule. ACF included this third criterion so that projects that are built in-house, such as without vendor assistance, may qualify as non-S/TACWIS projects.
This phrase is used in § 1355.56—Requirements for S/TACWIS and non-S/TACWIS projects during and after the transition period.
We propose to add a definition of “notice of intent
This definition is used in § 1355.52—CCWIS project requirements where we propose the requirement for the notice of intent for CCWIS projects below the APD approval thresholds defined at 45 CFR 95.611.
We propose to add a definition of an active “S/TACWIS project.” We wish to define an active S/TACWIS project because this is one type of project in which existing automated functions are exempt from the CCWIS design requirements in § 1355.53(a).
We propose to define a “S/TACWIS project” as an active automated data processing system or project that, prior to the effective date of these regulations, ACF classified as a S/TACWIS and for which: (1) ACF approved a procurement to develop a S/TACWIS; or (2) the applicable state or tribal agency approved a development procurement for a S/TACWIS below the thresholds of 45 CFR 95.611 (a).
The first proposed criterion requires the approval of development procurement documents (such as Requests for Proposals or Requests for Quotations) by ACF. The second proposed criterion requires the approval of development procurement documents by the state or tribal agency with authority to approve the documents. By `active' automated data processing system or project, we mean that the system is being used as of the effective date of these regulations or the state or tribe is designing, developing or implementing the system as of the effective date of the regulations.
These two proposed criteria are clear measures of a S/TACWIS project that has progressed beyond preliminary planning stages. This formal approval of development procurement documents is an early indicator of the title IV-E agency's commitment to build a system that qualifies the project as a S/TACWIS project.
This phrase is used in § 1355.56—Requirements for S/TACWIS and non-S/TACWIS projects during and after the transition period.
We propose to add a definition of “transition period” and to define it as the 24 month period after the effective date of these regulations.
This phrase is used in § 1355.56—Requirements for S/TACWIS and non-S/TACWIS projects during and after the transition period.
In new paragraph (b) of § 1355.51, we propose to use terms defined at 45 CFR 95.605 in §§ 1355.50 through 1355.59. 45 CFR 95.605 lists definitions for regulations under which the Department will approve FFP for the costs of automated data processing incurred under an approved State plan for titles IV-B, IV-D, IV-E, XIX or XXI of the Act.
We propose to revise § 1355.52 to include requirements for all CCWIS projects. We organized the proposed requirements as follows:
• In revised § 1355.52(a), we propose that CCWIS must support the efficient, economical, and effective administration of the title IV-B and IV-E plans.
• In revised § 1355.52(b), we propose the categories of data CCWIS must maintain.
• In revised § 1355.52(c), we propose CCWIS reporting requirements based on the data requirements proposed in § 1355.52(b).
• In new § 1355.52(d), we propose data quality requirements applicable to the data described in our proposals in § 1355.52(b) as well as the systems and processes used to collect this data.
• In new § 1355.52(e), we propose that CCWIS must support one bi-directional data exchange to exchange relevant data with specified program systems.
• In new § 1355.52(f), we propose CCWIS must use a single data exchange standard for certain bi-directional data exchanges.
• In new § 1355.52(g), we propose that CCWIS must support the title IV-E eligibility determination process.
• In new § 1355.52(h), we propose requirements for title IV-E agencies to provide copies of CCWIS software and documents to ACF.
• In new § 1355.52(i), we propose that title IV-E agencies must submit certain project documentation to qualify for CCWIS cost allocation.
• In new § 1355.52(j), we propose to list APD requirements applicable to all under threshold CCWIS projects.
In revised § 1355.52(a), we propose to continue the statutory requirement that the system support the efficient, economical, and effective administration of the title IV-B and IV-E plans pursuant to section 474(a)(3)(C)(iv) of the Act. ACF proposes in revised § 1355.52(a)(1) through (4) general requirements that an efficient, economical, and effective system must meet.
In revised § 1355.52(a)(1), we propose that the system must improve program management and administration by maintaining all program data required by federal, state or tribal law or policy. Maintaining program data supports case workers, supervisors, and managers in efficiently and effectively providing service to clients and administering the program. We provide further proposed program data requirements in paragraph (b).
In revised § 1355.52(a)(2), we propose that the design must appropriately apply computer technology. Such designs implement innovative, tested, and proven approaches to support efficient, economical, and effective systems. We provide further design requirements in revised § 1355.53(a).
In revised § 1355.52(a)(3), we propose that the project must not require duplicative application system development or software maintenance. Duplicative development and maintenance increases costs. During our system reviews, we have also observed that duplicative applications require caseworkers to enter the same data repeatedly which reduces worker efficiency.
In revised § 1355.52(a)(4), we propose that project costs must be reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial. Our processes for reviewing project activities and costs are described in the APD regulations at 45 CFR part 95, subpart F. We also propose in new § 1355.52(j) to apply a subset of these regulations to projects under the thresholds defined in 45 CFR 95.611.
We propose in revised § 1355.52(b) to require that the CCWIS maintain all program data mandated by statute and regulation, and the data that the title IV-E agency determines is needed for the more efficient, economical, and effective administration of the programs carried out under a state or tribal plan approved under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Act. Specifically, in § 1355.52(b) we propose that the title IV-E agency's CCWIS must maintain data that supports administration of the title IV-B and title IV-E program, data needed for ongoing federal child welfare reports, data to support state or tribal child welfare laws, regulations, policies, practices, reporting requirements, audits, program evaluations, and reviews. For states, CCWIS must maintain data to support specific measures taken to comply with 422(b)(9) of the Act related to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) data.
This is different from the S/TACWIS regulation in that the proposed requirements include an emphasis on maintaining data within the CCWIS, rather than the focus in S/TACWIS on where the data is collected. Focusing on the maintenance of data rather than the collection of data increases the flexibility available to title IV-E agencies regarding the design of automated data processing systems used to support their child welfare programs. We propose that the CCWIS maintain the data received from other sources, applying the data quality standards
Some comments to the 2010 FR Notice requested that the proposed regulations define all required data. In general, other than the data specifically required in legislation, regulation, reviews, audits, and that needed by the title IV-E/IV-B agency to support its administration of its programs, as outlined below, we are not proposing to define a comprehensive set of CCWIS data elements. We determined that such specificity would require regulatory amendments to ensure consistency with future changes in law and policy and was not consistent with our goal of promoting the flexibility to design an automated data processing system to meet the title IV-E agency's business needs. Therefore, revised § 1355.52(b) defines categories of data that may overlap so that specific data elements may be covered by multiple requirements.
In new § 1355.52(b)(1), we propose to require that the CCWIS maintain all data required to support the efficient, effective, and economical administration of the programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Act. We outline requirements regarding the scope of this data in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of § 1355.52.
In new § 1355.52(b)(1)(i), we propose to require that the CCWIS maintain all data required for ongoing federal child welfare reports. This includes data for required federal data reporting such as AFCARS and NYTD (if applicable), the Title IV-E Programs Quarterly Financial Report (Form CB-496) and any other ongoing federal reporting that may be required by statute or regulation. Where applicable, this includes case management data maintained in the CCWIS that the title IV-E agency uses to create narrative based reports such as the Child and Family Service Plan (CFSP) and Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR).
We acknowledge that requirements may vary among title IV-E agencies, for example tribes are not required to submit data to the NYTD or NCANDS.
In new § 1355.52(b)(1)(ii), we propose to require that the CCWIS maintain data required for title IV-E eligibility determinations, authorizations of services and other expenditures that may be claimed for reimbursement under titles IV-B and IV-E.
For the purposes of this proposed requirement, data necessary for title IV-E eligibility determinations includes documentation of title IV-E eligibility requirements such as the factors used to demonstrate the child would qualify for AFDC under the 1996 rules, placement licensing and background check information and court findings. Data required for authorizations of services and other expenditures under titles IV-B and IV-E includes data on services authorized, records that the services were delivered, payments processed, and payment status, including whether the payment will be allocated to one or more federal, state, or tribal programs for reimbursement, and the amount of the payment. In addition, information needed to support federal financial claims reports for titles IV-B and IV-E are considered necessary, such as the Form CB-496, as well as information to support audits of the activities and services that are the basis of such claims. However, the automated functions that use this information, such as those that support financial claims processing and payments, are not required to be a part of the CCWIS. For example, the CCWIS may have an automated exchange with an external financial system(s) that processes payments and disburses funds as discussed in proposed new § 1355.52(e)(1)(i).
Proposed requirements regarding automated functions to support the process of making title IV-E eligibility determinations are in proposed new § 1355.52(g).
In new § 1355.52(b)(1)(iii), we propose to require that the CCWIS maintain all data needed to support federal child welfare laws, regulations, and policies. The data defined in this paragraph is expected to reflect title IV-B and IV-E federal policy and programmatic requirements and may change over time.
In new § 1355.52(b)(1)(iv), we propose to require that the CCWIS maintain all case management data to support federal audits, reviews and other monitoring activities that are not specifically covered by paragraph (iii). Examples include the data necessary for title IV-E reviews authorized under § 1356.71 and the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) authorized under 42 U.S.C. 1320a-2a. We do not propose to require the CCWIS to maintain additional data that a review team may collect for review purposes that is not gathered as part of the title IV-E agency's ongoing case management practice. For example, some of the data the state uses to evaluate CFSR systemic factors such as surveys or focus group summaries is not case management data and we would not expect that data to be maintained in the CCWIS.
In new § 1355.52(b)(2), we propose to require that the CCWIS maintain the data to support state or tribal laws, regulations, policies, practices, reporting requirements, audits, program evaluations, and reviews. We recognize that title IV-E agencies may identify a data need or functionality based on their specific circumstances, populations, title IV-E plan and business practices that is not specifically prescribed by federal law or policy. The title IV-E agency will define these requirements, specifying the basis for the data collection, as well as measures to help assure that the automated data processing system maintains quality data. Examples of these types of data include data specified in laws or policies, quality assurance, caseworker narratives, scanned documents, completed templates, and other program evaluation information or court monitor data. Title IV-E agencies may also identify candidate data elements by identifying common data collected across child welfare contributing agencies that is not shared with the CCWIS.
We propose this requirement to encourage title IV-E agencies to consider innovative ways CCWIS can support their unique programs. We look forward to working with and providing technical assistance to title IV-E agencies related to this requirement.
In new § 1355.52(b)(3), we propose to require that the CCWIS maintain for states, data to support specific measures taken to comply with the requirements in section 422(b)(9) of the Act regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act. Supporting ICWA with CCWIS makes administration of the state plan for compliance with ICWA more efficient, economical, and effective. As required by the Program Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-13-04, which was issued by ACYF on April 10, 2013, the state's APSR must cite available data used to assess the level of compliance and progress made to improve the agency's compliance with ICWA. Minimally, we expect states to maintain data in their CCWIS on notification of Indian parents and tribes of state proceedings involving Indian children. The CCWIS may maintain data
• Placement preferences of Indian children in foster care, pre-adoptive, and adoptive homes;
• Active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family when parties seek to place a child in foster care or for adoption; and
• The right of Indian parents and tribes to intervene in state proceeding or to transfer proceedings to the jurisdiction of the tribe.
In new § 1355.52(b)(4), we propose to require that the CCWIS maintain, for each state, data for NCANDS data. NCANDS is a voluntary data collection effort created in response to the requirements of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (Pub. L. 93-247) as amended. However, CB policy requires states that implement a SACWIS to submit NCANDS data. This proposed requirement is consistent with this policy.
In revised § 1355.52(c), we propose to incorporate the requirements in existing § 1355.53(a) and (b) and S/TACWIS policy described in the ACYF Action Transmittal ACF-OISM-001, which was issued on February 24, 1995, regarding generation and submission of reports. The reports must be based on data maintained in the CCWIS per the proposed requirements in revised § 1355.52(b). We simplified the regulations by placing all reporting requirements in revised § 1355.52(c) and organizing them into two general categories. We will provide technical assistance to title IV-E agencies as needed so that the CCWIS can use the data described in revised § 1355.52(b) to generate and submit the reports described in this paragraph.
In new § 1355.52 (c)(1), we propose to revise and incorporate the current requirements in § 1355.53(a) and (b). We propose to require that the system generate, or contribute to, title IV-B and IV-E federal reports according to applicable formatting and submission requirements and based on data maintained in the CCWIS per the proposed requirements in revised § 1355.52 (b). In order to avoid having to modify these rules as reporting requirements change over time, this requirement is inclusive of all current and any future federal reports required by titles IV-B or IV-E of the Act.
Examples of federal reports covered by this requirement include, but are not limited to:
• AFCARS reporting requirements found at § 1355.40. The CCWIS must maintain all data used to report information to AFCARS, even if data is collected and updated in child welfare contributing systems or received through exchanges with other agencies such as the title IV-D system. The AFCARS report must be generated entirely from the data maintained in the CCWIS and must be a full historical account of the child's foster care experience within the state/tribal service area.
• NYTD, for state title IV-E agencies only. Consistent with section 479B(f) of the Act tribal title IV-E agencies are exempt from NYTD requirements at 45 CFR 1356.80 through 1356.86. The CCWIS must maintain the case management data on youth in foster care and services provided to them, even if some data are collected and updated in child welfare contributing systems. Consistent with current policy in Program Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-10-04, which was issued on April 2, 2010, states have the option to collect survey data on outcomes in an external system. The report may be generated entirely from the CCWIS. Alternately, data from the CCWIS may be combined with the outcomes data to construct the NYTD report.
• CFSP/APSR requirements found at 45 CFR 1357.15 and 1357.16. These submissions follow guidance provided by CB and are largely narrative in format. The CCWIS will provide statistics as needed to support the title IV-E agency's program analysis.
• Title IV-E programs quarterly financial report on Form CB-496 as required by Program Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-10-14, which was issued on November 23, 2010. The CCWIS will provide a subset of the financial and demographic data required to complete this form to support claims for title IV-E funding.
• CFSR reporting found at 45 CFR 1355.34 and 1355.35. CFSR reporting may include data collected during review activities, which is not required to be maintained in the CCWIS. However, we expect the CCWIS to maintain data as proposed in revised § 1355.52(b) to support the CFSR review process.
In new § 1355.52(c)(2), we propose to incorporate the current requirement at § 1355.53(a) and S/TACWIS policy that the system generate or contribute to reports that support programs and services described in title IV-B and title IV-E of the Act and are needed to support state or tribal child welfare laws, regulations, policies, practices, reporting requirements, audits, and reviews. These reports will be specific to the needs of the title IV-E agency or the state or tribal executive offices. Examples include, but are not limited to:
• Management and statistical reports to monitor, track, and support agency, office, team, or individual needs;
• Contract compliance, budgeting and forecasting;
• Court settlement agreement monitoring;
• Outcomes data to support continuous quality improvement efforts; and
• Reports to state legislatures or tribal leadership regarding aggregated case data.
In new § 1355.52(d), we propose data quality requirements that apply to the CCWIS. We distinguish between current and proposed data quality requirements in our discussion of the subparagraphs.
A CCWIS must consistently provide high quality data to meet the statutory requirement to support the efficient, economical, and effective administration of child welfare programs, as required in section 474(a)(3)(C)(iv) of the Act. During our reviews of SACWIS systems, we determined that most title IV-E agencies understand the importance of high quality data and implement a variety of strategies to improve data quality. However, these reviews also indicate that it remains challenging for title IV-E agencies to consistently ensure SACWIS produces high quality data. Therefore, we propose to supplement current data quality requirements with new requirements based on best practices to improve data quality. Although title IV-E agencies already implement many of these best practices, our proposed requirements will mandate their consistent use by all title IV-E agencies implementing a CCWIS.
In new § 1355.52(d)(1), we outline the proposed data quality and confidentiality requirements for data that must be maintained in the CCWIS, per § 1355.52(b).
In new § 1355.52(d)(1)(i), we propose that the data described in revised § 1355.52(b) that is maintained in the CCWIS meet the applicable federal, and state or tribal standards for completeness, timeliness and accuracy. Currently, S/TACWIS regulations at § 1355.53(g) requires the system to perform quality assurance reviews of case files to ensure accuracy, completeness and compliance, and S/TACWIS policy in Action Transmittal ACF-OISM-001, Part IV requires automated quality assurance measures, processes, and functions to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of critical data.
Complete, timely, and accurate data supports the entire child welfare program. The data supports all aspects of direct service to clients, including:
This proposed requirement means that all data maintained in the CCWIS must be complete, timely, and accurate in order to support the efficient, economical, and effective administration of the child welfare program. Statutes, regulations, or policy may establish specific data quality standards. For example, federal regulations specify the data quality standards for AFCARS and NYTD data. Likewise, title IV-E agencies have policies requiring the completion of certain tasks within defined deadlines such as caseworker visits, transition planning, administrative reviews, permanency hearings, and the collection of related data. CCWIS data follows the specific standards identified by both federal requirements and state or tribal laws and policies. If two or more standards apply to the same data, the title IV-E agency follows the more rigorous standard. For example, if one standard required updating the CCWIS in seven days and a second standard set a two-day limit, the two-day limit applies.
In new § 1355.52(d)(1)(ii), we propose to require that data be consistently and uniformly collected by CCWIS and, if applicable, child welfare contributing agency systems. By “if applicable,” we mean if the title IV-E agency permits child welfare contributing agencies to use other systems to collect CCWIS data, that data must meet the standards established for CCWIS data.
S/TACWIS rules enforce consistent and uniform data collection by requiring a single state or tribal system for the collection of all child welfare data. Our proposed rule will provide greater data collection flexibility to title IV-E agencies by eliminating this requirement and permitting other systems to collect and electronically share data with CCWIS and other contributing systems. However, this flexibility will require closer monitoring of data by title IV-E agencies to ensure that data collected by child welfare contributing agencies and systems has the same meaning to all staff collecting, entering, and using the data. If all users do not share a common understanding of data, client records transferred between agencies may be misinterpreted, adversely affecting client monitoring, services, and outcomes.
This proposed requirement means that the title IV-E agency will be able to ensure there is a shared understanding of all data electronically exchanged between CCWIS and child welfare contributing agency systems.
In new § 1355.52(d)(1)(iii), we propose that the title IV-E agency must exchange and maintain CCWIS data in accordance with the confidentiality requirements of applicable federal and state or tribal laws. This is not a new requirement as data maintained under a SACWIS are subject to federal, state, and tribal confidentiality requirements. The federal confidentiality provisions are those at section 471(a)(8) of the Act, regulations at 45 CFR 1355.30(p)(3) applying 45 CFR 205.50, and CB policy at sections 2.1A.1 and 8.4E of the Child Welfare Policy Manual. These statutes, regulations, and policies require that title IV-E agencies provide safeguards regarding the use and/or disclosure of data about children receiving title IV-E or IV-B assistance. They do not forbid agencies from sharing data with appropriate agencies, and set forth the parameters for when the data may (or must) be disclosed. Confidentiality requirements that apply to child abuse and neglect information is described in 42 U.S.C 5106a(b)(2)(B)(viii) through (x) of CAPTA. These confidentiality provisions also apply to agencies that are the recipients of the confidential information, such as child welfare contributing agencies.
In new § 1355.52 (d)(1)(iv), we propose to require that the CCWIS data described in revised § 1355.52(b) must support child welfare policies, goals, and practices. This means that data collected by or maintained in CCWIS is necessary to support the efficient, economical, and effective administration of the child welfare program.
In new § 1355.52(d)(1)(v), we propose to require that the CCWIS data described in revised § 1355.52(b) must not be created by default or inappropriately assigned. Through our S/TACWIS reviews, we have observed systems that create data by automatically completing data fields with a common response. For example, a system may classify all persons as U.S. citizens as a default, since the title IV-E agency presumes that most of the children and families that they serve are born in the United States. The practice of automatically generating data can create inaccurate data in the system because workers may not verify or correct the accuracy of system-generated data.
We acknowledge there are cases where system calculated data is appropriate. For example, it is acceptable to generate time stamps denoting the time of record entry in the CCWIS. System created data also is acceptable in instances where CCWIS can accurately derive or calculate the data, such as calculating current age by using the verified birth date and current date.
In new § 1355.52(d)(2), we propose to require that the title IV-E agency implement and maintain specific automated functions in CCWIS. We expect that these automated functions will support the IV-E agency's efforts to ensure that the CCWIS data described in revised § 1355.52(b) meets the data quality requirements of § 1355.52(d)(1). We propose five automated functions in CCWIS in the following subparagraphs. One requirement, for the CCWIS to monitor data quality, incorporates the current S/TACWIS regulatory requirement at § 1355.53(g). Of the four new automated function requirements, three are consistent with current S/TACWIS policy in Action Transmittal ACF-OISM-001.
We are proposing these requirements because information technology is consistently and successfully used to support data quality. It is efficient to use automation to support data quality processes since computers perform routine tasks quicker and more consistently than people. Computers can also review all data and flag potential data quality problems that require further investigation. This increases worker effectiveness by enabling workers to focus on solving data quality problems rather than sifting through data to identify errors.
In new § 1355.52(d)(2)(i), we propose to incorporate the requirement that the system regularly monitor data quality through automated functions. This requirement is currently found in S/TACWIS regulations at § 1355.53(g).
This proposed requirement means that CCWIS is expected to have automated functions at the point data is received in the CCWIS and other regular intervals to maintain data quality. For example, in addition to edit checks to validate data entry, automated functions in CCWIS should review data provided by data exchanges, compare data from different sources for inconsistencies, scan stored data for missing or out-of date information, and validate CCWIS data before it is exchanged with other systems.
In new § 1355.52(d)(2)(ii), we propose a new requirement that through an
This proposed requirement means that the CCWIS must provide automated alerts, reports, and other appropriate automated tools to support workers to effectively maintain data quality. In our experience with SACWIS reviews, agencies report measurable data quality improvements after implementing appropriate alerts. Staff collecting data play a key data quality role and agency training is critical in supporting workers in their role.
In new § 1355.52(d)(2)(iii), we propose a new requirement that IV-E agency's CCWIS includes automated functions to send electronic requests to child welfare contributing agency systems to submit current and historical data to the CCWIS. This proposed requirement means that CCWIS automated functions must support bi-directional data exchanges with child welfare contributing agency systems, will monitor the data exchanged, and notify other systems when the CCWIS has not received data by the deadlines. Examples of such data include home visit reports, investigation reports, assessments, and placement changes. The required exchange between the CCWIS and systems operated by child welfare contributing agencies is described in new § 1355.52(e)(1)(ii).
Our proposed rule provides greater flexibility in allowing the CCWIS to maintain required child welfare data through an exchange with child welfare contributing agency systems. While ensuring data quality in a single system requires constant and diligent effort, it is even more challenging when independent systems are exchanging data. Therefore, we are proposing this requirement that CCWIS provide automated support for ensuring that the CCWIS is provided timely data from child welfare contributing agencies.
In new § 1355.52(d)(2)(iv), we propose a new requirement that a title IV-E agency implement and maintain automated functions in the CCWIS that prevent, to the extent practical, the need to re-enter data already captured or exchanged with the CCWIS. This includes data that is either entered directly into the CCWIS or maintained in the CCWIS through an exchange with a child welfare contributing agency's system. It is our expectation that data collected in the CCWIS or CCWIS data provided through an exchange should not need to be re-entered in either the CCWIS or a child welfare contributing agency's system. This proposed requirement is consistent with S/TACWIS policy in Action Transmittal ACF-OISM-001 to support efficient work processes.
When the CCWIS exchanges data with one of the systems identified in new § 1355.52(e)(2), we recognize it may not always be possible to meet this requirement due to competing system requirements. However, to the extent practicable, the title IV-E agency should work with the other agency to implement automated functions and exchange data in a way that prevents the need to re-enter data already maintained by the CCWIS.
The automated functions will likely also promote data quality by preserving accurate historical data and supporting the review and correction of data. This requirement will eliminate inefficiencies in the system caused by duplicate data entry. It may also result in reducing the presence of inconsistent data (for example, if two workers enter different dates for a child's birth date).
In new § 1355.52(d)(2)(v), we propose a new requirement that CCWIS generate reports of continuing or unresolved CCWIS data quality problems. For example, the CCWIS may flag children in foster care who have not received visits in expected timeframes so supervisors can follow-up to determine if a worker missed a visit or did not document the activity.
This proposed requirement is consistent with the best practice of creating regular or ad hoc reports to monitor data, which has been implemented by most title IV-E agencies. Title IV-E agencies indicate that these reports are an effective tool for improving data quality. State title IV-E agencies use such reports to continuously monitor data quality and to assist in identifying weaknesses in data quality processes. In many cases, agencies have corrected the weaknesses with new automated edit checks, staff training, or data collection processes.
In new § 1355.52(d)(3), we propose new requirements for annual title IV-E agency data quality reviews and what the reviews should entail. Data quality is critical to ensuring that agency staff have confidence in the data they rely on to make decisions or take action. Ensuring that data is not erroneous, missing, or misinterpreted is an important resource for effective case management activities and services that support children, families, and the child welfare program.
Annual data quality reviews ensure that the CCWIS maintains the high quality data necessary for the efficient, economical, and effective administration of the title IV-B and IV-E programs. The reviews are also critical to ensure that title IV-E agencies monitor and improve data, uncover the factors that negatively affect data quality, and implement corrective measures as needed. ACF will provide technical assistance related to these data quality reviews.
In new § 1355.52(d)(3)(i), we propose a new requirement that the annual data quality reviews determine if the title IV-E agency and, if applicable, child welfare contributing agencies, meet the new requirements of §§ 1355.52(b), (d)(1), and (d)(2). CCWIS data from child welfare contributing agency systems are included in annual data quality reviews because complete high quality data collected and exchanged by all partners is critical to supporting the communication and collaboration necessary for coordinating services to children and families, assisting with the title IV-E agency's monitoring activities, and producing accurate federal reports. We expect that title IV-E agencies will, as part of the reviews proposed, monitor child welfare contributing agency data collection activities and systems to ensure CCWIS data meets the standards established in contracts and agreements.
In new § 1355.52(d)(3)(ii), we propose a new requirement that the title IV-E agency's annual data quality reviews confirm that bi-directional data exchanges:
• Meet the bi-direction data exchange requirements described in § 1355.52(e);
• Meet the data exchange standard requirements described in § 1355.52(f); and
• Other ACF regulations and policies.
Having a process to periodically review established bi-directional data exchanges is essential to help exchange partners identify new opportunities for collaboration as well as uncover unexpected problems with the existing bi-directional data exchanges.
In new § 1355.52(d)(4), we propose a new requirement that the title IV-E agency must enhance CCWIS or the electronic bi-directional data exchanges of both to correct findings from the annual reviews described at § 1355.52 (d)(3). This proposed requirement means that the title IV-E agency must correct identified factors contributing to the findings from the annual reviews. For example, if the annual review determined that CCWIS did not capture data to accommodate changing program requirements, the CCWIS must be enhanced to correct this finding.
This proposed requirement to address review findings with corrective action establishes an annual, repeatable cycle of continuous quality improvement. Each successive review measures the impact of past corrective actions. This enables title IV-E agencies to determine the effectiveness of those actions and make adjustments leading to further improvements.
In new § 1355.52(d)(5), we propose a new requirement that the title IV-E agency must develop, implement, and maintain a CCWIS data quality plan in a manner prescribed by ACF and include it as part of the Annual or Operational APD as required in 45 CFR 95.610. Required components of the CCWIS data quality plan are identified in § 1355.52(d)(5)(i) and (ii).
This proposed requirement means that title IV-E agency must prepare and implement a formal plan that ensures CCWIS data quality. A comprehensive, formal approach embodied in a plan will ensure data quality in systems maintaining wide-ranging data critical to delivering and managing child welfare services. Because the plan will need to be amended occasionally in order to address new issues as federal, state, and tribal laws, regulations, policies, and practices change, ACF will provide further guidance as needed.
In new § 1355.52(d)(5)(i), we propose a new requirement that the data quality plan describe the comprehensive strategy to promote quality data including the steps to meet the requirements at § 1355.52(d)(1) through (3).
In new § 1355.52(d)(5)(ii), we propose a new requirement that the data quality plan must report the status of compliance with § 1355.52(d)(1). Section 1355.52(d)(1) outlines the data quality and confidentiality requirements. Title IV-E agencies demonstrated during our reviews that regularly measuring and reporting data quality can help them identify data quality issues that need to be addressed. For example, if certain data are low quality, the title IV-E agency may need to revise the data quality plan in specific areas to improve those data. Comparing the data quality measures in past and present data quality reports on a regular basis serves as an objective indicator of progress toward improving data quality. These measures can help both ACF and the title IV-E agency assess the overall effectiveness of the agency's data quality strategy. This proposed requirement means that the data quality report must include measures of the plan's impact on data quality.
In new § 1355.52(e), we propose requirements for eleven bi-directional data exchanges (formerly called interfaces) to exchange relevant data. We propose to replace the technical term “interface” used in the current S/TACWIS regulations at § 1355.53(b)(1) and (d) with the phrase “data exchange” in these proposed regulations to more fully convey the purpose of sharing information. Otherwise, the terms are similar in meaning. By “relevant data,” we mean data collected in an information system that may, in compliance with applicable confidentiality requirements, be shared with a program that considers the data useful for meeting goals or objectives. We provide examples of relevant data in the discussion of several of the bi-directional data exchange requirements.
Six bi-directional data exchanges are unchanged from S/TACWIS regulatory requirements at § 1355.53(b)(2) and five are new bi-directional data exchanges, as shown in the following table.
The proposed bi-directional data exchanges are essential to:
• Support the efficient, economical, and effective administration of the titles IV-B and IV-E programs;
• Improve outcomes for children and families by promoting collaboration and service coordination with other programs;
• Gather comprehensive data on client histories, needs, and services;
• Eliminate duplicate work and service delivery across programs; and
• Reduce data collection costs.
Consistent with regulations at § 1355.53(a) requiring that a S/TACWIS promote the effective, economical, and efficient management of the titles IV-B and IV-E programs, we propose to incorporate the regulatory requirement that permits a maximum of one bi-directional data exchange for each of the data exchange requirements. For example, a title IV-E agency could not build a dozen different bi-directional data exchanges to education systems used by school districts across the state or tribe. The agency could build a single education bi-directional data exchange capable of exchanging data with systems in multiple school districts. It is also acceptable to build one bi-directional data exchange that can meet the requirements of more than one of the required data exchanges. For example, a single exchange with a system supporting eligibility determinations for the title XIX and title IV-A programs may meet the requirements of the title XIX and title IV-A data exchanges.
We also propose to incorporate the regulatory requirement at § 1355.53(b)(1) and policy in Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-05 specifying bi-directional data exchanges. This requirement means that the CCWIS must be capable of sending data to, and receiving data from the other system or systems participating in a bi-directional data exchange.
Finally, title IV-E agencies often incorrectly assume they must modify their S/TACWIS to store data in the format of the data received via an
In new § 1355.52(e)(1), we propose that CCWIS must support one-bi-directional data exchange to exchange relevant data with each of the systems in new § 1355.52(e)(i) through (iv), if data is generated by a system outside of CCWIS.
In new § 1355.52 (e)(1)(i), we propose a new requirement that CCWIS exchange data with systems generating financial payments and claims data for titles IV-B and IV-E, per § 1355.52(b)(1)(ii), if applicable. By “if applicable” we mean that the CCWIS must have a bi-directional data exchange if a system or module other than CCWIS generates financial payments and claims. If CCWIS generates the financial payments and claims, a bi-directional data exchange is not needed to provide the data to CCWIS.
We propose this requirement because child welfare agencies generate large numbers of financial payments and the resulting data is needed for audit and claiming purposes. Entering this data into multiple information systems can introduce errors. Electronic bi-directional data exchanges eliminate these data re-entry errors, ensure that all systems are using the same data, and increase worker efficiency.
This requirement incorporates current regulations at § 1355.53(b)(7) and S/TACWIS policy in Action Transmittal ACF-OISM-001. Current § 1355.53(b)(7) requires S/TACWIS to support financial management functions such as payment authorization and issuance, review and management. Action Transmittal ACF-OISM-001 requires that these financial management functions either be implemented in S/TACWIS or in a separate system that exchanges data with S/TACWIS.
In new § 1355.52(e)(1)(ii), we propose a new requirement that the CCWIS must have a bi-directional data exchange with systems operated by child welfare contributing agencies that are collecting or using data described in § 1355.52(b), if applicable. By “if applicable” we mean that the CCWIS must have a bi-directional data exchange if a system or module other than CCWIS is used to collect or generate the data. If CCWIS generates the required data for the entire population, a bi-directional data exchange is not needed to provide the data to CCWIS. An increasing number of title IV-E agencies contract with child welfare contributing agencies to provide a range of child welfare services, ranging from traditional supportive services and placements to case management. If a title IV-E agency contracts or has an agreement with a child welfare contributing agency to perform case management activities, we expect this exchange between the CCWIS and the contributing agency's system will avoid the need for duplicate data entry, which is monitored in the agencies data quality plan and reviews. If a child welfare contributing agency places children with multiple smaller providers, such as group homes, foster homes, or other institutions, the data exchange with the child welfare contributing agency that performs the case management activity and keeps records on the placements of its multiple providers will provide the required information. It is not necessary for CCWIS to exchange data with individual providers where the child is placed by the child welfare contributing agency.
The required bi-directional data exchange ensures the CCWIS maintains comprehensive case records while providing child welfare contributing agencies with the data needed to support services to children and families in the child welfare program.
The bi-directional data exchange should provide child welfare contributing agencies information with all available CCWIS data needed to administer the cases of children and families to whom they provide services.
In new § 1355.52(e)(1)(iii), we propose a new requirement that the CCWIS must have a bi-directional exchange with each system used to calculate one or more components of title IV-E eligibility determinations per § 1355.52(b)(1)(ii), if applicable. By “if applicable” we mean that the CCWIS must have a bi-directional data exchange if a system or module other than CCWIS generates the data. If CCWIS generates the required data, a bi-directional data exchange is not needed to provide the data to CCWIS.
Title IV-E agencies may use other systems to support different steps in the title IV-E eligibility process. For example, court findings related to title IV-E eligibility may reside in the private provider's system; a licensing system may track foster home licenses; and a financial system may calculate compliance with the AFDC factors. In these examples, a bi-directional data exchange with each system is required to ensure CCWIS maintains all data related to title IV-E determinations.
This requirement is consistent with current regulations at § 1355.53(b)(5) and (7) and S/TACWIS policy in Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-005 issued August 21, 1998. Current § 1355.53(b)(5) and (7) require S/TACWIS to support title IV-E eligibility determinations. Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-005 permits title IV-E agencies to use other systems to support title IV-E eligibility determinations provided the information is available to child welfare staff through the S/TACWIS.
We propose this requirement to promote efficiency and ensure CCWIS maintains complete, timely, and accurate data on all title IV-E eligibility determinations if the information is not part of the CCWIS. Title IV-E agencies report that consolidating eligibility information and case management data in the same system improves program operations. However, data errors may be introduced if data generated by one system is manually re-entered in CCWIS. It is also inefficient to reenter data manually. This requirement to exchange data eliminates the errors and inefficiencies of manual reentry.
In new § 1355.52(e)(1)(iv), we propose to require a bi-directional data exchange between CCWIS and each system external to CCWIS used by title IV-E agency staff to collect CCWIS data, if applicable. By “if applicable” we mean that the CCWIS must have a bi-directional data exchange if an external system used by title IV-E agency staff collects the data. If, for example, one external system conducts child assessments and a second external system collects NYTD survey data, CCWIS must have two bi-directional data exchanges. The bi-directional data exchange supports efficient, economical, and effective work by automatically transferring CCWIS data between systems. This requirement is more flexible than the current S/TACWIS policy that does not permit external systems for the collection of CCWIS data.
In new § 1355.52(e)(2), we propose that, to the extent practicable, the IV-E agency must support one bi-directional data exchange to exchange relevant data with specified state or tribal systems. These are exchanges with titles IV-D, IV-A, XIX (two exchanges), courts, education, and the child abuse and neglect systems. The one bi-directional data exchange requirement means that if there are multiple systems supporting one program, the title IV-E agency should design one data exchange that accommodates the multiple systems. If this cannot be done, the title IV-E may present a business case in an APD describing the circumstances that make the data exchange impracticable, in accordance with section 474(a)(3)(C)(ii)
We note that CCWIS funding is available for enhancements to CCWIS to support the data exchange. This funding is not available for enhancing the other system exchanging data.
In new § 1355.52(e)(2)(i), we propose that the IV-E agency must support one bi-directional data exchange with the child abuse and neglect system(s), to the extent practicable. This incorporates the current requirement at § 1355.53(b)(1)(ii) requiring a bi-directional data exchange with the system(s) collecting data related to child abuse and neglect. Consistent with guidance in Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-05, this means that the bi-directional data exchange supports the automatic exchange of common or relevant data between the CCWIS and the child abuse and neglect system(s).
Relevant data related to child abuse and neglect for the purposes of this requirement as listed in Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-05 includes screening, investigation, and assessment data collected during child abuse and neglect incidents as well as child welfare case management information related to prior or current child abuse and neglect cases.
Most state title IV-E agencies, recognizing the close connection between child protection and child welfare services, opted to integrate child abuse and neglect functions into their SACWIS. Because of the success of this approach over the 20 year S/TACWIS history, ACF strongly encourages title IV-E agencies to build their CCWIS to integrate these two systems in order to exchange essential data.
In new § 1355.52(e)(2)(ii), we propose that the title IV-E agency must support one bi-directional data exchange with the system(s) operated under title IV-A of the Act, to the extent practicable. This proposed requirement continues the statutory provision requiring a bi-directional data exchange with systems supporting the title IV-A (TANF) program. Consistent with guidance in Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-05, this means the bi-directional data exchange:
• Supports the automatic exchange of common or relevant data between the two systems;
• Accepts and processes new or updated case data; and
• Identifies potential duplicate payments under the title IV-E and title IV-A programs, if applicable.
“Relevant data,” as listed in Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-05 for the purposes of this requirement, includes data that may benefit data exchange partners in serving clients and improving outcomes. Some examples of data title IV-E agencies report is beneficial include: Case management information such as child and family histories, assessments, contact notes, calendars, services recommended and delivered, eligibility for programs and services, and client outcomes. We encourage data exchange partners to learn about each other's programs and systems to identify relevant data that may be shared while complying with the applicable confidentiality requirements as described in new § 1355.52(d)(2)(iii).
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193) allows states and tribes to implement separate title IV-A programs within the jurisdiction and to administer the programs using a number of different information systems. In such circumstances, the CCWIS must have one bi-directional data exchange flexible enough to be used by the state or tribe's title IV-A programs with which the title IV-E agency exchanges data.
In new § 1355.52(e)(2)(iii), we propose that the title IV-E agency must support one bi-directional data exchange with systems operated under title XIX of the Act, to the extent practicable. First, we propose to incorporate the requirement at § 1355.53(b)(2)(iii) and implemented in Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-05 requiring a bi-directional data exchange with the Medicaid eligibility system. Second, we propose to add a requirement for a bi-directional data exchange with claims processing and information retrieval systems under title XIX. We discuss both requirements below.
In new § 1355.52(e)(2)(iii)(A), we propose to incorporate the requirement at existing § 1355.53(b)(2)(iii) that the title IV-E agency must support one bi-directional data exchange with systems used to determine Medicaid eligibility, to the extent practicable. Consistent with guidance in Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-05, the bi-directional data exchange:
• Provides for the exchange of information needed by the Medicaid eligibility system to calculate and track Medicaid eligibility for children in foster care;
• Allows for the automatic exchange of common or relevant data between the two systems; and
• Captures the data necessary to report AFCARS foster care data indicating whether the child is eligible for, or receiving assistance under title XIX.
“Relevant data” for the purposes of this requirement includes data that may facilitate the timely provision of Medicaid insurance to children under the care and custody of the title IV-E agency. Some examples may include: Categorical title IV-E indicators, income and resources for the child and family, insurance coverage (other than Medicaid) that may apply to the child, and eligibility ID numbers and effective dates. We encourage data exchange partners to learn about each other's programs and systems to identify relevant data that may be shared while complying with the applicable confidentiality requirements as described in new § 1355.52(d)(2)(iii).
In new § 1355.52(e)(2)(iii)(B), we propose a new requirement that the title IV-E agency must support one bi-directional data exchange with the Medicaid mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems as defined at 42 CFR 433.111(b), to the extent practicable.
We are adding this requirement because recent studies indicate that the movement of foster children between placements and medical providers may make the provision of consistent, coordinated, and cost effective care difficult. Providers may be unable to access critical information, including information on chronic conditions, needed immunizations, and current medications. As a result, previously diagnosed conditions may go untreated, immunizations may be missed or unnecessarily repeated, and drug regimens, such as psychotropic medications, stopped or inappropriately modified. A bi-directional data exchange can provide information to promote quality health care for these children and reduce costs to both programs.
This proposed new requirement means that the CCWIS maintains complete and current medical records on children in foster care.
“Relevant data” for the purposes of this requirement includes data on services paid by the state, tribe, or other federal programs, including Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program that is available in the Medicaid mechanized claims processing and information retrieval system, and that facilitates coordinated delivery of health care to children under the care and custody of the title IV-E agency. As noted above, examples of relevant data may include medical appointment histories, immunizations, and prescription records.
If the Medicaid eligibility and claims processing and information retrieval systems are integrated, we propose that these requirements may be met with one bi-directional data exchange to the single system. However, because these are substantially different bi-directional data exchanges, title IV-E agencies may build one bi-directional data exchange to meet the requirements of new § 1355.52(e)(2)(iii)(A) and a second bi-directional data exchange to meet the requirements of new § 1355.52(e)(2)(iii)(B) even if one Medicaid system performs all these functions.
Finally, we note that a number of states have already implemented such exchanges to the benefit of the children in care.
In new § 1355.52(e)(2)(iv), we propose to incorporate the requirement at § 1355.53(b)(2)(iv) that the title IV-E agency must support one bi-directional data exchange with system(s) operated under the title IV-D of the Act (child support), to the extent practicable. Consistent with guidance in Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-05, the bi-directional data exchange:
• Provides for the exchange of data necessary to establish a child support case;
• Accurately records child support collections on appropriate title IV-E federal reports;
• Identifies potential child support resources for the title IV-E child;
• Allows for the automatic exchange of common or relevant data between the two systems;
• Accepts and processes updated or new case data;
• Captures the data necessary to report AFCARS foster care data indicating whether child support funds are being paid to the state agency on behalf of the child; and
• Provides the title IV-D system with information about the current foster care maintenance payment.
“Relevant data” for the purposes of this requirement includes data that may facilitate timely identification of resources for children under the care and custody of the title IV-E agency. Examples may include family resources such as contact information for the non-custodial parent and relatives that may be able to participate in family team meetings or as placement resources. The exchange may also facilitate establishment of a child support order, as appropriate, or the assignment of child support funds to the title IV-E agency on behalf of the child.
For tribal title IV-E agencies, Part 1, Section A, Line 3 of the title IV-E federal reporting form CB-496, instructs tribes to leave the “Federal Share of Child Support Collections” blank. This is because as of December 2014 there is no federal mechanism for tribes to report child support collections on behalf of title IV-E eligible children in placements. If a reporting mechanism becomes available in the future, this proposed regulation should be read consistent with updated regulation and policy.
In new § 1355.52(e)(2)(v), we propose a new requirement that the title IV-E agency must support one bi-directional data exchange with the systems operated by the court(s) of competent jurisdiction over the title IV-E foster care, adoption, and, guardianship programs, to the extent practicable.
We propose this requirement because of the necessary partnership child welfare programs and the courts have in protecting the well-being of children and meeting statutory requirements under title IV-E. State or tribal courts with jurisdiction over the title IV-E foster care and adoption programs review the information provided by title IV-E agencies and approve or make other related legal determinations, including custody and placement activity. The courts are responsible for resolving a wide variety of issues with relevance to child welfare. Title IV- E of the Act requires that courts provide on-going oversight of child welfare cases to:
• Make a determination that it is “contrary to the welfare” for the child to remain in the home, and that removal by the child welfare agency is necessary to keep the child safe from abuse or neglect (section 472(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act);
• Ensure that the child welfare agency makes reasonable efforts to avoid unnecessary removals of children from their homes and to reunify foster children with their families (section 472(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act);
• Finalize the child's permanency goal, whether it is reunification, guardianship, adoption, permanent placement with a relative, or another planned permanent living arrangement, within 12 months of the date the child entered foster care and to assess progress toward that goal every 12 months after that the child remains in care (section 475(5)(C) of the Act);
• Determine whether a voluntary placement of a child with a child welfare agency continues to be in the best interest of the child within 180 days of placement (section 472(e) of the Act); and determine whether termination of parental rights is in the child's best interest (section 475(5)(C) and (E) of the Act).
In many jurisdictions, courts currently obtain the case information for judicial determinations and reviews from written petitions and filings submitted by the title IV-E agency. Caseworkers document the outcome of judicial events and rulings and the issuance of court orders in children's case records. Much of this information is entered into child welfare information systems. A bi-directional data exchange between the CCWIS and courts can increase worker efficiency, enrich case information, improve case tracking, and promote safe and timely permanency decisions.
This proposed requirement will support improved outcomes for children by:
• Providing courts with relevant data for child welfare hearings and decisions; and
• Providing the title IV-E agency with relevant data on hearing schedules, logistics, court findings, actions, and decisions.
“Relevant data” for the purposes of this requirement includes data that may help improve case tracking and promote safe and timely permanency decisions. Examples may include petition dates, hearing dates and outcomes, documentation of timely completion of required actions by courts and the title IV-E agency, and documentation of upcoming court-related due dates.
In new § 1355.52(e)(2)(vi), we propose a new requirement that the title IV-E agency must support one bi-directional data exchange with the systems operated by the state or tribal education agency, or school districts, or both, to the extent practicable. The data exchange must comply with applicable confidentiality requirements in federal and other laws, such as the Privacy Rule under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and Parts B and C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Title IV-E agencies must assure in the title IV-E plan that each child receiving a title IV-E payment and who has attained the age for compulsory school
Child welfare agencies must also include in a child's case plan a strategy for ensuring the educational stability of a child in foster care as established in section 475(1)(G) of the Act. The plan must take into account the appropriateness of the current educational setting and the proximity to the school the child was enrolled in at the time of placement, and the title IV-E agency must coordinate with the local education agency or agencies to ensure the child can remain in that school, or if remaining in that school is not in the best interests of the child, an assurance to enroll the child immediately in a new school with all of his or her educational records.
Consistent with the requirements under title IV-E, recent amendments made to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by the Uninterrupted Scholars Act (Pub. L. 112-278) (U.S.A.), allow education agencies and institutions to disclose the education records of a child in foster care, without parental consent, to a caseworker or other representative of a state or local child welfare agency or tribal organization authorized to access a student's case plan “when such agency or organization is legally responsible, in accordance with state or tribal law, for the care and protection of the student . . .” pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(L). These changes are further described in May 27, 2014 guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education (located at
As a result, bi-directional data exchanges between the CCWIS and education systems can facilitate interagency coordination and assist state title IV-E agencies and local educational agencies in meeting the obligations mandated by title IV-E of the Act. For example, educational data, such as attendance records, progress reports, and individualized education programs or individualized family service plans under the IDEA, may now be shared with a child welfare agency, and that can help title IV-E agencies improve monitoring and develop appropriate plans for educational stability. Child welfare data can inform schools of legal custody changes, the physical location of children, and assist with the development of appropriate education plans. A number of states, recognizing these advantages, have passed legislation or established polices supporting bi-directional data exchanges between child welfare and education systems.
An electronic bi-directional data exchange will promote timeliness of data transfers, reduce administrative burden by eliminating the interim step of translating and importing data into separate systems, ensure standardization of data elements, streamline mandated administrative reporting, and provide access to standardized information that can be used for cross-systems, multi-level analyses.
We acknowledge that states and tribes with de-centralized education systems may be challenged to build a single, bi-directional data exchange, and we look forward to providing technical assistance to state and tribal title IV-E agencies as they work to overcome these barriers and build exchanges with education system(s).
In new § 1355.52(f), we propose a new requirement that title IV-E agencies use a single data exchange standard for CCWIS electronic bi-directional data exchanges described in § 1355.52(f)(1) through (3) upon implementing a CCWIS.
The data exchange standard must describe the data, definitions, formats, and other specifications sending and receiving systems implement when exchanging data. This shared vocabulary improves collaboration and communication since partners know precisely what data to share and the meaning of data they receive. A data exchange standard may reduce costs as the standard may be reused for multiple exchanges and purposes. The standard applies only to the exchange and not to how the information is stored or collected in either the sending or receiving system.
In response to our 2010 FR notice, we received comments requesting that ACF specify a data exchange standard. We do not propose to mandate the specific data exchange standard. Instead, we propose to allow title IV-E agencies the flexibility to implement a standard that best meets their needs. For example, the data exchange standard may be:
• Developed by the title IV-E agency;
• An existing standard selected by the title IV-E agency, such as the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM);
• Designated by the federal government, such as DHHS or the Office of Management and Budget; or
• Designated by the state or tribe for use by all programs within the state or tribal service area.
In new § 1355.52(f)(1), we propose to require that a single data exchange standard be used for electronic bi-directional data exchanges between CCWIS and each child welfare contributing agency.
Implementing a common data exchange standard between the title IV-E agency and all child welfare contributing agencies ensures that all agencies know what data to share and the meaning of the data they receive. It also eliminates redundant work and supports coordinated services.
In new § 1355.52(f)(2), we propose to require that the data exchange standard must apply to internal data exchanges between CCWIS automated functions where at least one of the automated functions meets the requirements of § 1355.53(a), which are our proposed new requirements for the design of CCWIS automated functions. For example, if the CCWIS intake, case management, and eligibility modules exchange data with each other, the data exchanges must conform to the data exchange standard specifications.
A standardized data exchange between modules allows title IV-E agencies to more efficiently upgrade one module without changing other parts of the CCWIS sharing data with that module. The standard data exchange also helps document the module's operation and supports reuse. Modules using the same data exchange standard are more efficiently integrated into a single system, even if they are built by different developers or vendors.
In new § 1355.52(f)(3), we propose to require that the data exchange standard must apply for data exchanges with systems described under new § 1355.52(e)(1)(iv). These are electronic systems external to CCWIS used by title IV-E agency staff to collect CCWIS data. A standardized data exchange between CCWIS and these external systems will enable the title IV-E agency to efficiently and economically exchange data thereby preventing duplicate data entry and promptly providing CCWIS and external systems with CCWIS data.
Although our data exchange standard proposal applies to the three data exchanges specified above, we invite commenters to identify other entities, both within and across jurisdictions that
In new § 1355.52(g), we propose requirements for automated support for title IV-E eligibility determinations.
In new § 1355.52(g)(1), we propose to incorporate the requirement that a state title IV-E agency must use the same automated function or the same group of automated functions for all title IV-E eligibility determinations. This proposal is consistent with the existing S/TACWIS requirement at § 1355.53(b)(5) and incorporates into regulation current guidance in Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-05 that specifies that the automated support for the title IV-E eligibility determination process is:
• Wholly provided by the CCWIS;
• Wholly provided by another system such as a larger system that determines eligibility for multiple programs; or
• Provided by different systems that have different steps of the title IV-E eligibility determination process. For example, the automated support for determining if a child meets the AFDC requirements may be located in the system supporting the title IV-A program while the remaining automated support is in the CCWIS.
In new § 1355.52(g)(2), we propose to require that tribal title IV-E agencies, to the extent practicable, use the same automated function or the same group of automated functions for all title IV-E eligibility determinations. This includes, for example, eligibility determinations for the title IV-E foster care, adoption assistance and, if elected by the title IV-E agency, the guardianship assistance programs.
Our proposal to require that tribal title IV-E agencies meet this provision “to the extent practicable” is a change from the S/TACWIS regulations at § 1355.53(b)(5) that require tribal title IV-E agencies to use, without exception, at most one automated function to support each step in the eligibility determination process. We propose this exception because it may be unrealistic for tribal title IV-E agencies to implement one automated function to support each step of the eligibility determination process. For example, tribes are required by section 479B(c)(C)(ii)(II) of the Act to use the state AFDC plan that was in effect on July 16, 1996 of the state in which the child resides at the time of removal from the home to determine if the child meets the AFDC eligibility requirement. This means that tribal title IV-E agencies may need to use the AFDC plan from different states for different children, depending on the child's location at the time of removal. Therefore, it may not be cost effective for tribal title IV-E agencies to build an automated function to accommodate AFDC eligibility requirements of all states from which tribal children may be removed. However, if it is cost effective for a tribal title IV-E agency to automate other steps in the title IV-E eligibility process, those steps are expected to be automated.
Guidance in Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-05 regarding automated support for the title IV-E eligibility determination process also applies to tribal title IV-E agencies.
In new § 1355.52(h), we propose to require that the title IV-E agency must provide a copy of agency-owned software that is designed, developed, or installed with FFP and associated documentation to the designated federal repository upon ACF's request. This new requirement is a reasonable way to exercise our authority in 45 CFR 95.617(b) that provides the federal government “a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use and to authorize others to use for Federal Government purposes, such software, modifications, and documentation” funded with FFP. Our proposed requirement is consistent with guidance issued by the Department, such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Medicaid IT Supplement (MITS-11-01-v1.0): Enhanced Funding Requirements: Seven Conditions and Standards.
This requirement means title IV-E agencies must provide copies of all software and associated documentation requested by ACF and developed with FFP. We anticipate using this requirement to deposit specific, tested, and proven CCWIS automated functions into a federal repository so that they may be shared and reused by other title IV-E agencies. For example, if a title IV-E agency adds software supporting a new safety assessment to the federal repository other title IV-E agencies using that safety assessment could access the software. In this way, the ability to reuse software modules may significantly reduce system development costs for the federal government, states, and tribes.
In new § 1355.52(i), we propose to require the title IV-E agency to submit specific documentation for CCWIS projects.
In new § 1355.52(i)(1), we propose to require that before claiming funding in accordance with a CCWIS cost allocation, a title IV-E agency must submit an APD or, if below the APD submission thresholds defined at 45 CFR 95.611, a Notice of Intent. We propose to require that all projects must include the information described in this paragraph in its APD, or, if applicable Notice of Intent.
This proposed Notice of Intent will provide ACF with advance notice that an agency intends to implement a CCWIS project. This advance notice is necessary so that ACF can plan for the funding anticipated for these projects and provide technical assistance as they proceed.
In new § 1355.52(i)(1)(i), we propose to require the title IV-E agency to include in the APD or Notice of Intent a project plan describing how the CCWIS will meet the requirements in § 1355.52(a) through (h) and, if applicable, CCWIS options as described in § 1355.54.
ACF will provide guidance to IV-E agencies required to submit a Notice of Intent to describe the desired scope of a project plan in these documents. The documents should describe the activities, timeline, resources, and budget to be used to plan, design, develop, and implement a CCWIS.
In new § 1355.52(i)(1)(ii), we propose to require the APD or Notice of Intent include a list of all automated functions that will be included in the CCWIS.
Providing this list in addition to the more detailed information required in new § 1355.52(i)(1)(iii) at the start of a CCWIS project will help both ACF and the title IV-E agency to more reliably estimate project costs per CCWIS cost allocation requirements in § 1355.57.
In new § 1355.52(i)(1)(iii), we propose to require that the APD or Notice of Intent provide a notation whether each automated function listed in § 1355.52(i)(1)(ii) meets, or when implemented will meet, the requirements of § 1355.52(i)(1)(iii)(A) through (C). This proposed requirement will allow ACF and the title IV-E agency to determine which costs may qualify for CCWIS cost allocation throughout the development and operation of the CCWIS.
In new § 1355.52(i)(1)(iii)(A), we propose to require that the title IV-E agency report in the APD or Notice of Intent whether an automated function
We propose to add this new requirement because automated functions that support the child welfare program may qualify for CCWIS cost allocation, per the requirements described in § 1355.57. Providing additional detail to the list of automated functions will allow ACF and the title IV-E agency to more reliably estimate which project costs may qualify for CCWIS cost allocation.
In new § 1355.52(i)(1)(iii)(B), we propose to require that the title IV-E agency report in the APD or Notice of Intent whether an automated function is not (or when implemented will not be) duplicated within the CCWIS or systems supporting child welfare contributing agencies and is consistently used by all child welfare workers responsible for the area supported by the automated function.
This requirement incorporates S/TACWIS policy in Action Transmittal ACF-OISM-001 into regulation. We propose to include this new requirement because it is not effective, economical, or efficient to fund the implementation of automated functions that are duplicated or not consistently used by all users performing the function. For example, supporting a different risk assessment tool across multiple systems used by contracted providers and the CCWIS would not be an efficient use of CCWIS funding.
Providing this additional detail to the list of automated functions will allow ACF and the title IV-E agency to more reliably estimate which project costs may qualify for CCWIS cost allocation.
In new § 1355.52(i)(1)(iii)(C), we propose a new requirement that the title IV-E agency report in the APD or Notice of Intent whether an automated function complies (or when implemented will comply) with CCWIS design requirements described under § 1355.53(a), unless exempted in accordance with § 1355.53(b). We propose to add this requirement because automated functions that comply with CCWIS design requirements may qualify for CCWIS cost allocation. Providing this additional detail to the list of automated functions will allow ACF and the title IV-E agency to more reliably estimate which project costs may qualify for CCWIS cost allocation.
In new § 1355.52(i)(2), we propose to require title IV-E agencies to submit new information in their annual Operational APDs and Annual APD Updates for all CCWIS projects.
In new § 1355.52 (i)(2)(i), we propose to require that the Annual APD Update or Operational APD must include an updated list of automated functions included in CCWIS. This is a new requirement. We propose to require an updated list each year because changes to CCWIS may affect the number of automated functions included in CCWIS and eligible for CCWIS funding. Receiving updated information regarding automated functions allows ACF to monitor progress and adjust the CCWIS cost allocation, if necessary, to account for changes in whether new or existing automated functions comply with the requirements listed in § 1355.52(i)(2)(ii) and (iii).
In new § 1355.52(i)(2)(ii), we propose a new requirement that the title IV-E agency provide updates in the Annual APD Update or Operational APD including a notation whether each automated function listed in § 1355.52(i)(2)(i) meets (or when implemented will meet) the requirements of § 1355.52(i)(1)(iii)(B).
This requirement incorporates S/TACWIS policy from Action Transmittal ACF-OISM-001 into regulation. We propose to include this new reporting requirement because it is not effective, economical, or efficient to fund the implementation of automated functions that are either duplicated or not consistently used by all users performing the function.
In new paragraph (i)(2)(iii), we propose to require that that the title IV-E agency report in the Annual APD Update or Operational APD a description of any changes to the scope or the design criteria described at § 1355.53(a) for any automated function listed in § 1355.52(i)(2)(i). This information is necessary to determine the appropriate cost allocation for automated functions, because complying with CCWIS design requirements is one of the criteria to determine if an automated function may qualify for CCWIS cost allocation.
In new § 1355.52(j), we propose a new requirement that a title IV-E agency claiming title IV-E FFP for CCWIS projects below the APD submission thresholds at 45 CFR 95.611, will be subject to certain portions of the APD rules that we have determined are necessary for effective project management.
These rules are a subset of 45 CFR part 95, subpart F that apply controls to projects using FFP for the planning, design, development, implementation, operations and maintenance of automated data processing systems. These rules cover requirements that fall under the following topics:
• 95.613—Procurement standards;
• 95.615—Access to systems and records;
• 95.617—Software and ownership rights;
• 95.619—Use of Automated Data Processing (ADP) systems;
• 95.621—Automated Data Processing (ADP) Reviews;
• 95.626—Independent Verification and Validation;
• 95.627—Waivers;
• 95.631—Cost identification for purpose of FFP claims;
• 95.633—Nondiscrimination requirements;
• 95.635—Disallowance of FFP for automated systems that fail to comply substantially with requirements; and
• 95.641—Applicability of rules for charging equipment in Subpart G.
CCWIS projects claiming title IV-E FFP, with costs above the thresholds in § 95.611 (currently $5 million total project cost) continue to be subject to all of the provisions of 45 CFR part 95, subpart F, including submission of APDs. For these over threshold projects, application of the APD rules will not change.
We note that this proposed rule does not cite all federal laws relevant to information technology. For example, title IV-E agencies should ensure compliance with federal and state or tribal laws related to data privacy and confidentiality, such as: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
In revised § 1355.53, we propose new requirements for the design of CCWIS automated functions. This is a change from S/TACWIS regulations, which do not specify design requirements for S/TACWIS automated functions. In revised § 1355.53(a), we list the proposed design requirements. We propose these requirements to ensure that federal investments in information technology projects are efficient, economical, and effective in supporting programs. In revised § 1355.53(b), we propose to exempt CCWIS automated functions from one or more of the CCWIS design requirements in § 1355.53(a) under certain conditions.
Our proposed design requirements are consistent with several requirements in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS)
In new § 1355.53(a)(1), we propose a new requirement that CCWIS automated functions must follow a modular design that includes the separation of business rules from core programming.
By “modular” we mean a software development approach that breaks down complex program functions into separate manageable components with well-defined methods of communicating with other components. We propose this requirement because designing custom and highly specialized business processes to be independent and exchanging information by clear methods will allow title IV-E agencies to change one component of their CCWIS without modifying other processes or services. This will make subsequent CCWIS development and maintenance more efficient and economical. ACF will provide additional guidance on the design requirements to explain the efficiencies that may be gained if a title IV-E agency develops or licenses automated functions that:
1. May be reused in other automated processes requiring the same functions or services;
2. Are easier to maintain and enhance than large complex interlocking systems; and
3. Can be reliably connected to other automated functions without extensive re-testing of their internal processes.
ACF will consider the potential for re-use, ease of maintenance, and reliability to determine whether automated functions in a CCWIS comply with this requirement.
In new § 1355.53(a)(2), we propose a new requirement that title IV-E agencies must document automated functions contained in a CCWIS using plain language. By “plain language” we mean written communication using English, free of unexplained information technology jargon.
We propose this requirement because title IV-E agencies need complete and clear documentation, both in internal explanations of code and external documentation, for their information systems to promote re-usability and integrate an automated function into an existing system. Title IV-E agencies report that it is difficult to train new staff without complete and clear documentation and poorly documented systems are difficult to maintain.
This proposed requirement means that child welfare programmatic staff will be able to understand the meaning and purpose of an automated function from the documentation. The documentation should be complete so that technical staff unfamiliar with an automated function can understand, maintain, and enhance the automated function. Although we expect the documentation to include detailed technical specifications, it should include keys or other features to prevent misinterpretation.
As part of our reviews in proposed § 1355.55, ACF may review documentation to confirm compliance with this requirement.
In new § 1355.53(a)(3), we propose a new requirement that automated functions contained in CCWIS must adhere to a state, tribal, or industry defined standard that promotes efficient, economical, and effective development of automated functions and produce reliable systems.
This proposed requirement means that the title IV-E agency will use a development standard consistently for the documentation, design, development, testing, implementation, and maintenance of CCWIS automated functions. The standard may be selected by the title IV-E agency or it may be a standard that the state or tribe requires all information technology projects to follow.
ACF will evaluate the title IV-E agency's compliance with the selected standard as part of our reviews per proposed § 1355.55 to determine if the agency meets this requirement.
In new § 1355.53(a)(4), we propose a new requirement that CCWIS automated functions be capable of being shared, leveraged, and reused as a separate component within and among states and tribes. Title IV-E agencies share common goals, policies, and practices, which provide opportunities for sharing successful technology solutions that support their child welfare business practices. Promoting the development of automated functions in the CCWIS that may be reused and shared among states and tribes can save development costs and time.
This proposed requirement means that the title IV-E agency will develop CCWIS automated functions, with associated documentation, that could be used in another state or tribal modularly-designed system.
In revised § 1355.53(b), we propose to exempt CCWIS automated functions from one or more of the CCWIS design requirements in § 1355.53(a) under certain conditions. We discuss the two proposed exemptions below.
In revised § 1355.53(b)(1), we propose to exempt CCWIS automated functions from one or more of the CCWIS design requirements in § 1355.53(a) if the CCWIS project meets the requirements of § 1355.56(b) or 1355.56(f)(1). We are proposing this exemption so that title IV-E agencies do not have to replace existing automated functions of S/TACWIS and non-S/TACWIS projects transitioning to CCWIS if the automated functions do not meet the proposed design requirements of § 1355.53(a). This may reduce the costs of transitioning these systems to CCWIS.
In revised § 1355.53(b)(2), we propose to exempt CCWIS automated functions from one or more of the CCWIS design requirements in § 1355.53(a) if ACF approves, on a case-by-case basis, an alternative design proposed by a title IV-E agency that is determined by ACF to be more efficient, economical, and effective than what is found in paragraph (a). ACF will review and may approve requests for an exemption of paragraph (a) on a case-by-case basis.
We offer this exemption to accommodate technological advances that may provide new approaches, which are different from the requirements of § 1355.53(a), to design systems more efficiently, economically, and effectively. This allows title IV-E agencies to take advantage of such technological advances that meet CCWIS requirements.
An exemption may excuse a title IV-E agency from any or all requirements of § 1355.53(a). For example, the title IV-E agency may propose an approach different from the modular design requirement of § 1355.53(a)(1). If the title IV-E agency provides sufficient evidence that the alternative design approach delivers more efficient, economical, and effective results than § 1355.53(a)(1), ACF may exempt the title IV-E agency from § 1355.53(a)(1) and permit the agency to substitute the alternative design approach. Under this scenario, the other CCWIS design requirements remain in effect. If a design waiver is approved by ACF, CCWIS operational and development funding will be available.
In revised § 1355.54, we propose that if a project meets, or when completed will meet, the requirements of
This proposal means that CCWIS funding may be available to support the development and operation of optional data exchange or automated functions, provided that:
• It is part of a CCWIS project that meets, or when completed will meet, the requirements of § 1355.52 by supporting either an implemented CCWIS or an ACF-approved CCWIS project under development;
• It can qualify for the CCWIS cost allocation as described in § 1355.57;
• The title IV-E agency submits a business case to ACF for prior approval that explains how the automated function or data exchange supports a specific title IV-B or IV-E program goal; and
• It is approved by ACF.
Consistent with S/TACWIS regulations at §§ 1355.53(d) and 1355.57(a) and APD regulations at 45 CFR 95.631, CCWIS cost allocation may be available for the planning, design, development, installation, operations and maintenance of the CCWIS portion of approved optional data exchanges. CCWIS funding is not available for work completed on other systems, including those systems exchanging data with CCWIS.
In revised § 1355.55 we propose that ACF will review, assess, and inspect the planning, design, development, installation, operation, and maintenance of each CCWIS project on a continuing basis, in accordance with APD requirements in 45 CFR part 95, subpart F, to determine the extent to which the project meets the requirements in §§ 1355.52, 1355.53, 1355.56, and, if applicable, § 1355.54. This is consistent with current S/TACWIS regulations at 45 CFR 1355.55 and APD regulations at 45 CFR part 95, subpart F. Our reviews will evaluate aspects of the system such as: system functionality, CCWIS design requirements, data quality requirements, and compliance with data exchange standards, as well as the requirements specific to new CCWIS projects and projects transitioning to CCWIS as described in the proposed sections on funding, cost allocation, and submission requirements which are §§ 1355.52, 1355.53, 1355.56, and, if applicable, § 1355.54.
We propose to incorporate this requirement because ACF has responsibility to monitor and support activities funded with FFP. It is important to validate that the state or tribe's system is complete, fulfills the approved development and operational goals laid out in the APD or Notice of Intent, and that it conforms to relevant regulations and policies. The review process may also help the state or tribe to: document that the system meets federal requirements, identify system deficiencies, determine necessary corrective actions, and obtain technical assistance as needed.
In revised § 1355.56, we propose new transition requirements that will apply to existing S/TACWIS and non-S/TACWIS projects (as defined at § 1355.51). Some requirements, as specified below, apply only during the transition period (defined at § 1355.51 as 24 months from the effective date of the final rule); other requirements apply both during and after the transition period. We intend for title IV-E agencies to use the transition period to evaluate the feasibility of using their legacy applications as the foundation of a CCWIS.
A title IV-E agency may preserve information technology investments in a S/TACWIS or non-S/TACWIS system or project by using that system or project as the foundation of a CCWIS. Portions of such a system may already meet some CCWIS requirements, and the title IV-E agency may enhance the system to meet the remaining CCWIS requirements. However, a title IV-E agency with a S/TACWIS or non-S/TACWIS is not required to use that system as the foundation of a CCWIS. The agency may implement a new CCWIS at any time during or after the transition period.
In revised § 1355.56(a), we propose that during the transition period a title IV-E agency with a S/TACWIS project may continue to claim title IV-E funding according to the cost allocation methodology approved by ACF for development or the operational cost allocation plan approved by the Department, or both. This is permitted for active S/TACWIS projects as defined in § 1355.51. The title IV-E funding continues according to the developmental cost allocation methodology approved by ACF for development or the operational cost allocation plan approved by Cost Allocation Services (CAS) within the Department, or both. We propose this requirement to provide title IV-E agencies with a period of uninterrupted funding sufficient to make a determination about how to proceed under the CCWIS rules and whether to transition their existing system to a CCWIS. The title IV-E agency must submit proposed changes to their development or operational cost allocation methodologies either in an APD (for development) or for states, a cost allocation plan amendment (for operations). The changes must be approved by ACF or CAS respectively. There are no tribal title IV-E agencies that currently have an active TACWIS. If this occurs, a tribe may submit an APD for development costs, if required, or a cost allocation methodology amendment for operational costs. ACF will offer technical assistance to title IV-E agencies during the transition period.
In revised § 1355.56(b), we propose that a S/TACWIS project must meet the submission requirements of § 1355.52(i)(1) during the transition period to qualify for the CCWIS cost allocation methodology described in § 1355.57(a) after the transition period. This means the title IV-E agency must submit an APD or Notice of Intent as described at § 1355.52(i)(1) during the transition period, notifying ACF of their intent to transition the S/TACWIS to a CCWIS, in order to qualify for the CCWIS cost allocation methodology in § 1355.57(a) after the transition period. This is a new requirement that only applies if a title IV-E agency has a S/TACWIS project that the agency intends to transition to a CCWIS and claim title IV-E funds according to the CCWIS cost allocation methodology after the transition period.
In new § 1355.56(c), we propose that a title IV-E agency with a S/TACWIS may request approval to initiate a new CCWIS and qualify for the CCWIS cost allocation methodology described in § 1355.57(b) by meeting the submission requirements of § 1355.52(i)(1). This means the title IV-E agency must submit an APD or Notice of Intent as required in § 1355.52(i)(1). Title IV-E agencies that choose to implement a
In new § 1355.56(d), we propose new requirements for a title IV-E agency that elects not to transition a S/TACWIS project to a CCWIS project.
In new § 1355.56(d)(1), we propose that a title IV-E agency must notify ACF in an APD or Notice of Intent submitted during the transition period of this election not to transition a S/TACWIS project to a CCWIS project.
In new § 1355.56(d)(2), we propose to require that the title IV-E agency that elects not to transition its S/TACWIS must continue to use S/TACWIS throughout its life expectancy in accordance with 45 CFR 95.619. The life expectancy is the length of time before the system may be retired or replaced as determined in APD submissions.
Title IV-E agencies that do not elect during the transition period to transition their S/TACWIS systems to a CCWIS may seek title IV-E reimbursement for administrative costs, including system development, under section 474(a)(3)(E) after the transition period ends. However, it is important that the title IV-E agency submit the APD or Notice of Intent as required in § 1355.56(d), so that the title IV-E agency can reclassify a S/TACWIS project to non-CCWIS projects without the risk of having to repay the costs invested in the project, as discussed in § 1355.56(e).
In new § 1355.56(e), we propose to incorporate the S/TACWIS requirement at § 1355.56(b)(4) allowing for recoupment of FFP for failure to meet the conditions of the approved APD. In our proposed requirement a title IV-E agency that elects not to transition its S/TACWIS project to a CCWIS and fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (d) is subject to funding recoupment described under § 1355.58(d). ACF may recoup all title IV-E FFP provided for the S/TACWIS project. This recoupment requirement is described in § 1355.58(d) that applies to non-compliant CCWIS projects and is consistent with S/TACWIS requirements.
In new § 1355.56(f), we propose that a title IV-E agency with a non-S/TACWIS (as defined in § 1355.51) that elects to build a CCWIS or transition to a CCWIS must meet the submission requirement of § 1355.52(i)(1). This means the title IV-E agency must submit an APD or Notice of Intent at the times described in § 1355.52(f)(1) and (2).
In new § 1355.56(f)(1), we propose that the APD or Notice of Intent must be submitted during the transition period to qualify for a CCWIS cost allocation as described at § 1355.57(a).
In new § 1355.56(f)(2), we propose that a title IV-E agency may submit an APD or, if applicable, a Notice of Intent at any time to request approval to initiate a new CCWIS and qualify for a CCWIS cost allocation as described at § 1355.57(b).
The title IV-E agency must notify ACF that they intend to transition to a CCWIS in a manner that meets the submission requirements at § 1355.52(i)(1).
In revised § 1355.57 we propose cost allocation requirements for CCWIS projects.
We are providing the following table to summarize the costs that may be allocated to title IV-E using the three different cost allocation methodologies described in this proposed section (CCWIS development, CCWIS operational, and non-CCWIS cost allocation). The table also references paragraphs of the proposed regulation related to each methodology. This table is for illustrative purposes and is not intended to address all cost allocation scenarios.
These proposed regulations are similar to S/TACWIS cost allocation requirements, which permit title IV-E agencies to allocate title IV-E system costs that support all participants of programs and activities described in title IV-E. CCWIS also incorporates the same development and operational cost allocation as S/TACWIS.
The proposed regulations provide a cost allocation incentive to build automated functions meeting the CCWIS requirements. As noted in the above table, the non-CCWIS cost allocation is the least beneficial to the title IV-E agency.
The proposed CCWIS cost allocation requirements provide title IV-E agencies with new flexibility to build a CCWIS supporting their specific program and circumstances while still qualifying for CCWIS cost allocation. Specifically, CCWIS cost allocation is available for automated functions and approved activities meeting CCWIS requirements. Automated functions and activities not meeting CCWIS requirements may qualify for a non-CCWIS cost allocation. For example, a title IV-E agency may build a system that partially qualifies for the CCWIS cost allocation, while the remaining parts of the system do not.
This approach is a change from S/TACWIS regulations, which require a title IV-E agency to implement a system providing all mandatory S/TACWIS functionality to qualify for S/TACWIS cost allocation. If a single mandatory functional requirement, such as the
In revised § 1355.57(a), we propose cost allocation requirements for projects transitioning to CCWIS. Transitioning projects may be either a S/TACWIS or a non-S/TACWIS project that meets the definitions in § 1355.51(i)(1).
In new § 1355.57(a)(1), we propose a requirement that all automated functions developed after the transition period for projects meeting the submission requirements in § 1355.56(b) or 1355.56(f)(1) must meet the CCWIS design requirements described under § 1355.53(a), unless exempted by § 1355.53(b)(2). Our proposed regulations provide a transition period to accommodate title IV-E agencies with existing systems that may transition to CCWIS. After the transition period, new development in these systems must comply with CCWIS design requirements under § 1355.53(a), unless exempted by § 1355.53(b)(2).
In new § 1355.57(a)(2), we propose two requirements an automated function of a project transitioning to CCWIS must meet in order for the Department to consider approving the applicable CCWIS cost allocation. The department will apply the definitions of “development” and “operation” in 45 CFR 95.605 to determine if the applicable CCWIS cost allocation for automated function costs is CCWIS development cost allocation or CCWIS operational cost allocation. ACF is authorized to approve state and tribal development cost allocation methodologies. CAS is authorized to approve operational cost allocation methodologies for states. The Department approves operational cost allocation methodologies for tribes.
In new § 1355.57(a)(2)(i), we propose that an automated function must support programs authorized under titles IV-B or IV-E, and at least one requirement in § 1355.52 or, if applicable § 1355.54. This proposed requirement is consistent with established cost allocation regulations and policies at 45 CFR 95.631, 1356.60(d)(2) and 45 CFR part 75 (45 CFR part 75 superseded OMB Circular A-87). These regulations and policies require system costs be allocated to the benefiting programs.
This means that the automated function must support the programs authorized under title IV-B or title IV-E (including the John H. Chaffee Foster Care Independence program), in addition to at least one requirement at § 1355.52 or, if applicable § 1355.54.
In new § 1355.57(a)(2)(ii), we propose that an automated function also must not be duplicated within either the CCWIS or systems supporting the child welfare contributing agency and be consistently used by all child welfare workers responsible for the area supported by the automated function. Automated functions of a CCWIS that do not meet this requirement but support title IV-E programs or services may qualify for non-CCWIS cost allocation as described in § 1355.57(f).
While similar to the S/TACWIS policy in Action Transmittal ACF-OISM-001, this requirement is more flexible than the current policy that requires that the entire S/TACWIS be used for all child welfare tasks in the state or tribal service area.
In revised § 1355.57(b), we propose cost allocation requirements for new CCWIS projects. A new CCWIS project is one that starts after the effective date of the final rule and will meet the CCWIS project requirements of §§ 1355.52 and 1355.53(a). We use the term “New CCWIS Project,” which is defined in § 1355.51, to distinguish these projects from S/TACWIS or non/S/TACWIS projects that began before the effective date of the final rule.
In new § 1355.57(b)(1), we propose that unless ACF grants the title IV-E agency an exemption in accordance with § 1355.53(b)(2), all automated functions of a new CCWIS project must meet all the CCWIS design requirements described under § 1355.53(a) to qualify for CCWIS cost allocation. By this we mean, if all automated functions of a project that the IV-E agency plans to implement as new CCWIS, do not meet the requirement at § 1355.53(a) and are not exempt from those requirements by § 1355.53(b)(2), the project may not be classified a new CCWIS.
In new § 1355.57(b)(2), we propose the requirements an automated function must meet so that it may qualify for CCWIS cost allocation.
In new § 1355.57(b)(2)(i), we propose that an automated function must support programs authorized under titles IV-B or IV-E, and at least one requirement of § 1355.52 or, if applicable § 1355.54. This is similar to the proposed requirement for CCWIS development cost allocation in § 1355.57(a)(2)(i).
This means that the automated function must support programs authorized under title IV-B or title IV-E (including the John H. Chaffee Foster Care Independence program), in addition to at least one requirement at § 1355.52 or, if applicable § 1355.54 to qualify for CCWIS cost allocation.
In new § 1355.57(b)(2)(ii), we propose that an automated function must not be duplicated within the CCWIS or other systems supporting child welfare contributing agencies and be consistently used by all child welfare users responsible for the area supported by the automated function.
While similar to the S/TACWIS policy in Action Transmittal ACF-OISM-001, this requirement is more flexible than the current policy that requires that the entire S/TACWIS be used for all child welfare tasks in the state or tribal service area.
CCWIS automated functions not meeting this requirement but that support title IV-E programs or services may qualify for non-CCWIS cost allocation as described in § 1355.57(f).
In new § 1355.57(c), we propose a new requirement consistent with the APD rule at 45 CFR part 95 subpart F that the Department may approve a CCWIS cost allocation for an approved activity for a CCWIS project meeting the requirements of § 1355.57(a) (transitioning projects) or (b) (new CCWIS projects).
Approved activities may be directly associated with an automated function, such as requirements gathering sessions, meetings to design screens, or writing test plans. However, certain automated systems related activities that are not directly linked to developing, implementing, or operating an automated function may also qualify for CCWIS cost allocation. Examples include developing the data quality plan, and conducting data quality reviews. ACF plans to issue guidance on approved activities.
In new § 1355.57(d), we propose a requirement that the title IV-E agency must allocate project costs in accordance with applicable HHS regulations and guidance. This requirement is consistent with current regulations at 45 CFR 95.631 and 45 CFR 95.503 as well as 45 CFR part 75.
We propose this requirement because our experience with title IV-E agencies on S/TACWIS reviews indicate that they frequently integrate child welfare information systems into enterprise systems shared with other health and human services programs. For example, a state or tribe may have one system supporting the child welfare, juvenile justice, and child support programs. We encourage this strategy to improve program collaboration and reduce system development costs.
However, this proposed requirement clarifies the order in which project costs must be allocated to be consistent with
In new § 1355.57(e), we propose cost allocation requirements for CCWIS development and operational costs. This proposal means that title IV-E agencies will be able to continue to receive the favorable cost allocation available to S/TACWIS projects for CCWIS projects meeting the requirements of §§ 1355.50 through 1355.57.
In new § 1355.57(e)(1), we propose to allow a title IV-E agency to allocate CCWIS development and operational costs to title IV-E for approved system activities and automated functions that meet three requirements as described in § 1355.57(e)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii).
We propose in new § 1355.57(e)(1)(i) that the costs are approved by the Department.
In new § 1355.57(e)(1)(ii), we propose that the costs meet the requirements of § 1355.57(a) (transitioning projects), (b) (new CCWIS projects), or (c) (approved activities).
In new § 1355.57(e)(1)(iii), we propose that the share of costs for system approved activities and automated functions that benefit federal, state or tribal funded participants in programs and allowable activities described in title IV-E of the Act may be allocated to the title IV-E program. Therefore, system costs benefiting children in foster care, adoptive, or guardianship programs, regardless of title IV-E eligibility, may be allocated to title IV-E.
In new § 1355.57(e)(2), we propose to allow title IV-E agencies to also allocate additional CCWIS development costs to title IV-E for the share of system approved activities and automated functions that meet requirements in § 1355.57(e)(1)(i) and (ii). These additional costs are described in new § 1355.57(e)(2)(i) and (ii).
In new § 1355.57(e)(2)(i), we propose that CCWIS development costs benefiting title IV-B programs may be allocated to title IV-E.
In new § 1355.57(e)(2)(ii), we propose that CCWIS development costs benefiting both title IV-E and child welfare related programs may be allocated to title IV-E. At this time, ACF only classifies juvenile justice and adult protective services as child welfare related programs.
In new § 1355.57(f), we propose to require that title IV-E costs not previously described in this section may be charged to title IV-E at the regular administrative rate but only to the extent that title IV-E eligible children are served under that program. This requirement is consistent with regulations at 45 CFR 95.631 and 1356.60(d)(2) and 45 CFR part 75 that allocate system costs to the benefiting programs.
This proposed requirement means that system costs that benefit title IV-E programs but do not meet the requirements of this section may still be allocated to title IV-E as administrative costs, but only to the extent that title IV-E eligible children are served under that program. However, as noted previously, costs that do not meet the requirements of § 1355.57(a), (b) or (c) but benefit title IV-B, other child welfare related programs, other human service programs, or participants in state or tribal funded programs may not be allocated to title IV-E but instead must be allocated to those programs.
New § 1355.58 of the proposed rule incorporates the current regulation at 45 CFR 1355.56. This section introduces the consequences of not meeting the requirements of the APD. Those consequences may include suspension of title IV-B and IV-E funding and possible recoupment of title IV-E funds claimed for the CCWIS project as described below.
In new § 1355.58(a), we propose that in accordance with 45 CFR 75.371 to 75.375 and 45 CFR 95.635, ACF may suspend IV-B and IV-E funding approved in the APD if ACF determines that the title IV-E agency fails to comply with the APD requirements in 45 CFR part 95, subpart F or meet the CCWIS requirements at § 1355.52 or, if applicable, §§ 1355.53, 1355.54, or 1355.56. The proposed requirement incorporates S/TACWIS regulations at 45 CFR 1355.56(a). We added a reference to the Department administrative rules at 45 CFR 75.371 to 75.375 that provides authority to suspend the funding and updated references to the proposed CCWIS requirements.
We propose to continue this requirement because our authority under 45 CFR part 75 and the APD rules in 45 CFR part 95, subpart F remains unchanged. Furthermore, it is not an efficient, economical, or effective use of federal funds to allow agencies to claim FFP using the CCWIS cost allocation for projects that do not meet the CCWIS requirements.
In new § 1355.58(b), we propose to incorporate the requirement that the suspension of funding under this section begins on the date that ACF determines that the agency failed to comply with or meet either the requirements of § 1355.58(b)(1) or (2). The proposed requirement incorporates the existing S/TACWIS rules at 45 CFR 1355.56(b)(2).
In new § 1355.58(b)(1), we propose that a suspension of CCWIS funding begins on the date that ACF determines the title IV-E agency failed to comply with APD requirements in 45 CFR part 95 subpart F.
In new § 1355.58(b)(2), we propose that a suspension of CCWIS funding begins on the date that ACF determines the title IV-E agency failed to meet the requirements at § 1355.52 or, if applicable, §§ 1355.53, 1355.54, or 1355.56 and has not corrected the failed requirements according to the time frame in the approved APD.
In new § 1355.58(c)(1) and (2), we propose that the suspension of funding will remain in effect until the date that ACF determines, in accordance with § 1355.58(c)(1), that the title IV-E agency complies with 45 CFR part 95, subpart F; or, in accordance with 1355.58(c)(2), until ACF approves the title IV-E agency's plan to change the application to meet the requirements at § 1355.52 and, if applicable, § 1355.53, § 1355.54, or § 1355.56. These proposed requirements incorporate the S/TACWIS regulations at 45 CFR 1355.56(b)(3).
In new § 1355.58(d), we propose that if ACF suspends an APD, or the title IV-E agency voluntarily ceases the design, development, installation, operation, or maintenance of an approved CCWIS, ACF may recoup all title IV-E funds claimed for the CCWIS project. The requirement incorporates the S/TACWIS requirements at 45 CFR 1355.56(b)(4), but we have modified the requirement to allow for all FFP to be recouped consistent with 2010 changes in the APD rules at § 95.635. We are including this requirement in the proposal because it is not an efficient, economical, or effective use of federal funds to allow title IV-E agencies to claim FFP using the CCWIS cost allocation for projects that do not meet the APD or CCWIS requirements.
We propose reserving § 1355.59 for future regulations related to CCWIS.
We propose changing the title of § 1356.60(e) from “Federal matching funds for SACWIS/TACWIS” to “Federal matching funds for CCWIS and Non-CCWIS.” We also propose to revise the paragraph to describe that federal matching funds are available at the rate of fifty percent (50%) and that the cost allocation of CCWIS and non-CCWIS project costs are at § 1355.57 of this chapter. These changes clarify that while the same matching rate applies to CCWIS and non-CCWIS, the proposed cost allocation requirements at § 1355.57 apply. The cost allocation rules describe the more favorable cost allocation available to CCWIS.
We propose to revise § 95.610(b)(12) to conform with our proposed regulations at §§ 1355.50 through 1355.58. We propose deleting the references to §§ 1355.54 through 1355.57, which is a title IV-E regulation since enhanced funding for information systems supporting the title IV-E program expired in 1997. We also propose revising § 95.610(b)(12) by adding the phrase “or funding, for title IV-E agencies as contained at § 1355.52(i).” because our proposed regulations at § 1355.52(i) add new requirements for CCWIS APDs.
We propose to revise § 95.611(a)(2) to delete the reference to the title IV-E regulation, § 1355.52 because enhanced funding for information systems supporting the title IV-E program expired in 1997.
We propose to revise § 95.612 which provides guidance on conditions that may lead to a disallowance of FFP for APDs for certain information systems. We propose to replace the phrase “State Automated Child Welfare Information System” with “Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) project and, if applicable the transitional project that preceded it.” We also propose to change the identified CCWIS regulations from §§ 1355.56 through 1355.58 because the paragraph also identifies other departmental regulations that are applicable when approval of an APD is suspended.
We propose to revise § 95.625(a) which provides guidance on FFP that may be available for information systems supporting title IV-D, IV-E and/or XIX programs at an enhanced matching rate. We propose removing the reference to title IV-E enhanced funding in the paragraph since enhanced funding for information systems supporting the title IV-E program expired at the end of Federal Fiscal Year 1997.
Section 95.625(b) identifies other departmental regulations that systems must meet to qualify for FFP at an enhanced matching rate. We propose removing the reference to title IV-E enhanced funding in the paragraph because enhanced funding for SACWIS expired at the end of Federal Fiscal Year 1997.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set forth in the E.O. The Department has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with these priorities and principles, and represents the best and most cost effective way to achieve the regulatory and program objectives of CB. We consulted with OMB and determined that this proposed rule meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Thus, it was subject to OMB review.
We determined that the costs to states and tribes as a result of this proposed rule will not be significant. First, CCWIS is an optional system that states and tribes may implement; therefore, we have determined that the proposed rule will not result in mandatory increased costs to states and tribes. Second, most if not all of the costs that states and tribes will incur will be eligible for FFP. Depending on the cost category and each agency's approved plan, states and tribes may be reimbursed 50 percent of allowable costs, applying the cost allocation rate authorized under section 474(a)(3)(C) and (D) of the Act, and section 474(c) of the Act, or at the 50 percent administrative rate authorized under section 474(a)(3)(E).
Costs will vary considerably depending upon a title IV-E agency's decision to either (1) build a new CCWIS or (2) transition an existing system to meet CCWIS requirements. Furthermore, the cost of the system will be affected by the optional functions an agency elects to include in the CCWIS.
We used cost data from five recent SACWIS implementations for mid-to-large sized states to estimate the average cost to design, develop, and implement a new SACWIS as $65 million (costs ranged from approximately $39 to $83 million). There are five states currently in the planning phase for a new system; the length of the planning phase typically ranges from 1 to 4 years. Once the final rule is issued, we anticipate that a similar number of states in the planning phase for a new SACWIS at that time will implement a new CCWIS for a total federal and state cost that will not exceed the $325 million (5 states x $65 million) estimated to build a new SACWIS. Based on our experience with SACWIS projects, development efforts typically last 3 to 5 years. We lack comparable tribal data for this estimate as no tribe has implemented a TACWIS.
We expect actual CCWIS costs to be lower than this S/TACWIS-based estimate for the following reasons. First, because CCWIS has fewer functional requirements than SACWIS, title IV-E agencies may build a new CCWIS for significantly lower cost. Whereas a S/TACWIS must develop and implement at least 51 functional requirements, the proposed rule only requires fourteen functional requirements, including eleven data exchanges, federal and agency reporting, and the determination of title IV-E eligibility. Second, CCWIS requirements permit title IV-E agencies to use less expensive commercial-off-the-shelf software (COTS) as CCWIS modules. A S/TACWIS must be custom built or transferred from another state and customized to meet agency business practices; lower cost COTS are just recently available to S/TACWIS projects. Third, the requirement to build CCWIS with reusable modules reduces overall costs as newer projects benefit from software modules shared by mature CCWIS projects. Finally, we anticipate lower tribal costs as most tribes serve smaller populations with fewer workers than states.
A title IV-E agency may also meet CCWIS requirements by enhancing an operational system to meet new CCWIS requirements. The new CCWIS requirements are data exchanges with courts, education, and Medicaid claims processing systems (and if applicable, data exchanges with child welfare contributing agencies and other systems used to collect CCWIS data), developing a data quality plan, compiling a list automated functions, and, if applicable, drafting a Notice of Intent. To estimate data exchange costs, we reviewed a sample of APDs where states reported S/TACWIS costs for eight data exchanges ranging from $106,451 to $550,000. The
Historically a S/TACWIS has a useful life ranging from 12—20 years and the age of current systems varies from new to nearing retirement. Consistent with past replacement trends, we anticipate that after the final rule is published, 2 to 4 systems annually will be replaced with new CCWIS systems for the average cost not to exceed the average SACWIS cost of $65 million each.
State and tribes will realize significant program administration and IT benefits from CCWIS. The requirements to maintain comprehensive high quality data will support the efficient, economical, and effective administration of the title IV-B and title IV-E programs. The requirements to exchange standardized data with other programs will support coordinated service delivery to clients served by multiple programs. The data exchanges will also reduce data collection costs and improve data quality for all participating programs. The requirements to build CCWIS with modular, reusable components meeting industry standards will result in systems that can be more quickly modified, easier to test, and less expensive to maintain. These modular, reusable components may be shared within and among states and tribes resulting in benefits to other programs and systems.
Alternatives Considered: We considered alternatives to the approach described in the proposed rule. First, an approach that leaves the current rules in place encourages the overdevelopment of large costly systems, and makes it increasingly difficult for title IV-E agencies to implement an efficient, economical, and effective case management system that supports their evolving business needs. Such an approach does not support a service model managed by multiple service providers that is still capable of providing high quality data on the children and families served. Second, an approach that provides even greater flexibility than what we proposed will undermine our collective goal of using the data maintained by child welfare information systems to help improve the administration of the programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Act and improving overall outcomes for the children and families served by title IV-E agencies.
The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this proposed rule will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The primary impact of this proposed NPRM is on state and tribal governments, which are not considered small entities under the Act.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation). That threshold level is currently approximately $151 million. We propose CCWIS as an option for states and tribes, therefore this proposed rule does not impose any mandates on state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector that will result in an annual expenditure of $151 million or more.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35, as amended) (PRA), all Departments are required to submit to OMB for review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. Collection of APD information for S/TACWIS projects is currently authorized under OMB number 0970-0417 and will be applicable to CCWIS projects. This proposed rule does not make a substantial change to those APD information collection requirements; however, this proposed rule contains new information collection activities, which are subject to review. As a result of the new information collection activities in this NPRM, we estimate the reporting burden, over and above what title IV-E agencies already do for the APD information collection requirements, as follows: (1) 550 Hours for the automated function list requirement; (2) 2,200 hours for the first submission of the data quality plan; and (3) 80 hours for the one-time Notice of Intent submission by states and tribes not submitting an APD.
The following are estimates:
1. List of automated functions. Our first step was to estimate the burden associated with the requirements we propose in §§ 1355.52(i)(1)(ii) and (iii) and 1355.52(i)(2)(i) and (ii). In those sections, we propose that the title IV-E agencies must provide a list of automated functions to be included in the CCWIS and report compliance with the design standards in § 1355.53(a). We applied the following assumptions:
• We assume that all 50 states plus the District of Columbia will build a CCWIS or transition their existing systems to CCWIS in the next three years.
• We also assume that few tribes will elect to build a CCWIS. As of December 2014, no tribal title IV-E grantee has expressed an interest in building a TACWIS-compliant system. To ensure that our estimate is not understated, we assume that four tribes will elect to build a CCWIS in the next three years.
We estimate the burden for these activities at 10 hours per respondent per year. We multiplied our estimate of 10 burden hours by 55 respondents (50 states + District of Columbia + 4 tribes)
2. Data quality plan. Our next step was to estimate the burden associated with the requirements we propose in § 1355.52(d) that title IV-E agencies building a CCWIS must develop and report on a data quality plan as part of an Annual or Operational APD submission. We applied the following assumptions:
• We assume that all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and four tribes will build a CCWIS or transition their existing systems to CCWIS in the next three years.
• We assume that states and tribes already have mechanisms in place to monitor and improve the quality of the data to meet program reporting and oversight needs.
We estimate the burden for these activities at 40 hours per respondent for the initial submission.
We do not estimate an additional burden in subsequent years because those submissions will require minimal updates of information previously submitted. We multiplied our estimate of 40 burden hours by 55 respondents (50 states + District of Columbia + 4 tribes) to arrive at a one-time burden increase of 2,200 hours (40 burden hours × 55 respondents) for the proposed data quality plan requirement.
3. APD or Notice of Intent. Finally, we estimated the burden associated with the proposed requirement in § 1355.52(i)(2)(ii), that a title IV-E agency that elects to build a CCWIS must announce their intention to do so either by submitting an APD, if the proposed project requires an APD, or a Notice of Intent if an APD is not required. We applied the following assumptions:
• A title IV-E agency with a CCWIS project subject to the APD process will have no new burden as such projects are already required to contain a plan per 45 CFR 95.610.
• The four tribes will submit a Notice of Intent because their projects are unlikely to exceed the threshold requiring submission of an Implementation APD at 45 CFR 95.611.
• 8 of 14 states with complete, fully functional SACWIS projects will undertake projects that will not exceed the threshold requiring submission of an Implementation APD at 45 CFR 95.611 and therefore will submit a Notice of Intent.
Our burden estimate for completing the Notice of Intent includes additional time for title IV-E agencies to review the submission requirements and for producing the letter and project plan for those projects not subject to the APD rules at 45 CFR part 95. We estimate that burden at 8 hours per respondent. We multiplied our estimate of 8 burden hours by 12 respondents (8 states + 4 tribes) to arrive at a one-time burden increase of 96 hours (8 burden hours × 12 respondents) for the proposed Notice of Intent requirement.
Once we determined the burden hours, we developed an estimate of the associated cost for states and tribes to conduct these activities, as applicable. We reviewed 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics data to help determine the costs of the increased reporting burden as a result of the proposed provisions of this NPRM. We assume that staff with the job role of Management Analyst (13-111) with a mean hourly wage estimate of $43.26 will be completing the Automated Function List, Data Quality Plan, and Notice of Intent documentation. Based on these assumptions, the Data Quality Plan and Notice of Intent represent a one-time cost of $99,324.96 (2,296 hours × $43.26 hourly cost = $99,324.96. We estimate that the average annual burden increase of 550 hours for the Automated Function List will cost $23,793 (550 hours × $43.26 hourly cost = $23,793.00).
We specifically seek comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in the following areas:
1. Evaluating whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of ACF, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluating the accuracy of ACF's estimate of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology, such as permitting electronic submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Office of Management and Budget, either by fax to 202-395-6974 or by email to
This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Ch. 8 and is thus not subject to the major rule provisions of the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8, defines a major rule as one that has resulted in or is likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-58) requires federal agencies to determine whether a proposed policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. These proposed regulations will not have an impact on family well-being as defined in the law.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. We do not believe the regulation has federalism impact as defined in the Executive Order. Consistent with E.O. 13132, the Department specifically solicits comments from state and local government officials on this proposed rule.
ACF published a notice of tribal consultation in the
The consultation with tribal leaders and their representatives was held via 2 teleconferences on February 15 and 16, 2012. Each consultation session was preceded by an introductory session that provided an overview of current federal policy and regulations regarding S/TACWIS. Tribes and tribal organizations used a total of 33 phone lines during the two teleconferences; multiple individuals were on shared lines at some of the participating sites.
The tribal consultation addressed three questions:
(1) What are the obstacles for your tribe in building a child welfare information system in general and a SACWIS-type system specifically?
(2) What information do you consider critical to managing your child welfare program?
(3) Is there any special information that tribes need or will need in order to operate child welfare programs funded with title IV-E dollars?
Commonly-cited barriers to the development of child welfare automation were fiscal concerns and staffing resources. Participants in the tribal consultation told CB that the scale of available S/TACWIS applications exceed their operational needs and the cost is more than a tribe could afford. In addition, smaller-scale systems that could quickly and economically be adapted for tribal needs were cited as a preferred alternative to custom system development.
One written comment was submitted, citing financial issues associated with system development. A full summary of the tribal consultation on child welfare automation can be found at
Generally, there was support from the tribal commenters to issue a regulation that will provide them with the flexibility in implementing a child welfare information system. These proposed rules provide sufficient latitude to allow a tribe to implement a system scaled to the size of their child welfare program, tailored to the tribe's program needs, and capable of collecting those data the tribe requires and required under this proposed rule.
Automatic data processing equipment and services—conditions for federal financial participation (FFP).
Adoption and foster care, Child welfare, Data collection, Definitions grant programs-social programs.
Administrative costs, Adoption and foster care, Child welfare, Fiscal requirements (title IV-E), Grant programs—social programs, Statewide information systems.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, HHS and the Administration for Children and Families propose to amend parts 95, 1355, and 1356 of 45 CFR as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 42 U.S.C. 622(b), 629b(a), 652(d), 654A, 671(a), 1302, and 1396a(a).
(b) * * *
(12) Additional requirements, for acquisitions for which the State is requesting enhanced funding, as contained at § 307.15 and 42 CFR subchapter C, part 433 or funding for title IV-E agencies as contained at § 1355.52(i) of this title.
(a) * * *
(2) A State shall obtain prior approval from the Department which is reflected in a record, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, when the State plans to acquire ADP equipment or services with proposed FFP at the enhanced matching rate authorized by § 205.35 of this title, part 307 of this title, or 42 CFR part 433, subpart C, regardless of the acquisition cost.
* * * In the case of a suspension of the approval of an APD for a Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) project and, if applicable the transitional project that preceded it,
(a)
(b) * * * The applicable regulations for the title IV-D program are contained in 45 CFR part 307. The applicable regulations for the title XIX program are contained in 42 CFR part 433, subpart C.
42 U.S.C. 620
Sections 1355.50 through 1355.59 contain the requirements a title IV-E agency must meet to receive federal financial participation authorized under sections 474(a)(3)(C) and (D), and 474(c) of the Act for the planning, design, development, installation, operation, and maintenance of a comprehensive child welfare information system.
(a) The following terms as they appear in §§ 1355.50 through 1355.59 are defined as follows—
(i) ACF approved a development procurement; or
(ii) The applicable state or tribal agency approved a development procurement below the thresholds of 45 CFR 95.611(a); or
(iii) The operational automated data processing system provided the data for at least one AFCARS or NYTD file for submission to the federal system or systems designated by ACF to receive the report.
(i) ACF approved a procurement to develop a S/TACWIS; or
(ii) The applicable state or tribal agency approved a development procurement for a S/TACWIS below the thresholds of 45 CFR 95.611(a).
(b) Other terms as they appear in §§ 1355.50 through 1355.59 are defined in 45 CFR 95.605.
(a)
(1) Improving program management and administration by maintaining all program data required by federal, state or tribal law or policy;
(2) Appropriately applying computer technology;
(3) Not requiring duplicative application system development or software maintenance; and
(4) Ensuring costs are reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial.
(b)
(1) Title IV-B and title IV-E data that supports the efficient, effective, and economical administration of the programs including:
(i) Data required for ongoing federal child welfare reports;
(ii) Data required for title IV-E eligibility determinations, authorizations of services, and expenditures under IV-B and IV-E;
(iii) Data to support federal child welfare laws, regulations, and policies; and
(iv) Case management data to support federal audits, reviews, and other monitoring activities;
(2) Data to support state or tribal child welfare laws, regulations, policies, practices, reporting requirements, audits, program evaluations, and reviews;
(3) For states, data to support specific measures taken to comply with the requirements in section 422(b)(9) of the Act regarding the state's compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act; and
(4) For each state, data for the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System.
(c)
(1) Generate, or contribute to, required title IV-B or IV-E federal reports according to applicable formatting and submission requirements; and
(2) Generate, or contribute to, reports needed by state or tribal child welfare laws, regulations, policies, practices, reporting requirements, audits, and reviews that support programs and services described in title IV-B and title IV-E.
(d)
(i) Meet the applicable federal, and state or tribal standards for completeness, timeliness, and accuracy;
(ii) Be consistently and uniformly collected by CCWIS and, if applicable, child welfare contributing agency systems;
(iii) Be exchanged and maintained in accordance with confidentiality requirements in section 471(a)(8) of the Act, and 45 CFR 205.50, and 42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(viii)-(x) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, if applicable, and other applicable federal and state or tribal laws;
(iv) Support child welfare policies, goals, and practices; and
(v) Not be created by default or inappropriately assigned.
(2) The title IV-E agency must implement and maintain automated functions in CCWIS to:
(i) Regularly monitor CCWIS data quality;
(ii) Alert staff to collect, update, correct, and enter CCWIS data;
(iii) Send electronic requests to child welfare contributing agency systems to submit current and historical data to the CCWIS;
(iv) Prevent, to the extent practicable, the need to re-enter data already captured or exchanged with the CCWIS; and
(v) Generate reports of continuing or unresolved CCWIS data quality problems.
(3) The title IV-E agency must conduct annual data quality reviews to:
(i) Determine if the title IV-E agency and, if applicable, child welfare contributing agencies, meet the requirements of paragraphs (b), (d)(1), and (d)(2) of this section; and
(ii) Confirm that the bi-directional data exchanges meet the requirements of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, and other applicable ACF regulations and policies.
(4) The title IV-E agency must enhance CCWIS or the electronic bi-directional data exchanges or both to correct any findings from reviews described at paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(5) The title IV-E agency must develop, implement, and maintain a CCWIS data quality plan in a manner prescribed by ACF and include it as part of Annual or Operational APDs submitted to ACF as required in 45 CFR 95.610. The CCWIS data quality plan must:
(i) Describe the comprehensive strategy to promote data quality
(ii) Report the status of compliance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(e)
(i) Systems generating the financial payments and claims for titles IV-B and IV-E per paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, if applicable;
(ii) Systems operated by child welfare contributing agencies that are collecting or using data described in paragraph (b) of this section, if applicable;
(iii) Each system used to calculate one or more components of title IV-E eligibility determinations per paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, if applicable; and
(iv) Each system external to CCWIS used by title IV-E agency staff to collect CCWIS data, if applicable.
(2) To the extent practicable, the title IV-E agency's CCWIS must support one bi-directional data exchange to exchange relevant data, including data that may benefit IV-E agencies and data exchange partners in serving clients and improving outcomes, with each of the following state or tribal systems:
(i) Child abuse and neglect system(s);
(ii) System(s) operated under title IV-A of the Act;
(iii) Systems operated under title XIX of the Act including:
(A) Systems to determine Medicaid eligibility; and
(B) Mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems as defined at 42 CFR 433.111(b);
(iv) Systems operated under title IV-D of the Act;
(v) Systems operated by the court(s) of competent jurisdiction over title IV-E foster care, adoption, and guardianship programs;
(vi) Systems operated by the state or tribal education agency, or school districts, or both.
(f)
(1) For bi-directional data exchanges between CCWIS and each child welfare contributing agency;
(2) For internal data exchanges between CCWIS automated functions where at least one of the automated functions meets the requirements of § 1355.53(a); and
(3) For data exchanges with systems described under paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section.
(g)
(2) A tribal title IV-E agency must, to the extent practicable, use the same automated function or the same group of automated functions for all title IV-E eligibility determinations.
(h)
(i)
(i) A project plan describing how the CCWIS will meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section and, if applicable § 1355.54;
(ii) A list of all automated functions included in the CCWIS; and
(iii) A notation of whether each automated function listed in paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this section meets, or when implemented will meet, the following requirements:
(A) The automated function supports at least one requirement of this section or, if applicable § 1355.54;
(B) The automated function is not duplicated within the CCWIS or systems supporting child welfare contributing agencies and is consistently used by all child welfare users responsible for the area supported by the automated function; and
(C) The automated function complies with the CCWIS design requirements described under § 1355.53(a), unless exempted in accordance with § 1355.53(b).
(2) Annual APD Updates and Operational APDs for CCWIS projects must include:
(i) An updated list of all automated functions included in the CCWIS;
(ii) A notation of whether each automated function listed in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section meets the requirements of paragraph (i)(1)(iii)(B) of this section; and
(iii) A description of changes to the scope or the design criteria described at § 1355.53(a) for any automated function listed in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section.
(j)
(a) Except as exempted in paragraph (b) of this section, automated functions contained in a CCWIS must:
(1) Follow a modular design that includes the separation of business rules from core programming;
(2) Be documented using plain language;
(3) Adhere to a state, tribal, or industry defined standard that promotes efficient, economical, and effective development of automated functions and produces reliable systems; and
(4) Be capable of being shared, leveraged, and reused as a separate component within and among states and tribes.
(b) CCWIS automated functions may be exempt from one or more of the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section if:
(1) The CCWIS project meets the requirements of § 1355.56(b) or § 1355.56(f)(1); or
(2) ACF approves, on a case-by-case basis, an alternative design proposed by a title IV-E agency that is determined by ACF to be more efficient, economical, and effective than what is found in paragraph (a) of this section.
If a project meets, or when completed will meet, the requirements of § 1355.52, then ACF may approve CCWIS funding described at § 1355.57 for other ACF-approved data exchanges or automated functions that are necessary to achieve title IV-E or IV-B programs goals.
ACF will review, assess, and inspect the planning, design, development, installation, operation, and maintenance of each CCWIS project on a continuing basis, in accordance with APD requirements in 45 CFR part 95, subpart F, to determine the extent to which the project meets the requirements in §§ 1355.52, 1355.53, 1355.56, and, if applicable, § 1355.54.
(a) During the transition period a title IV-E agency with a S/TACWIS project may continue to claim title IV-E funding according to the cost allocation methodology approved by ACF for development or the operational cost allocation plan approved by the Department, or both.
(b) A S/TACWIS project must meet the submission requirements of § 1355.52(i)(1) during the transition period to qualify for the CCWIS cost allocation methodology described in § 1355.57(a) after the transition period.
(c) A title IV-E agency with a S/TACWIS may request approval to initiate a new CCWIS and qualify for the CCWIS cost allocation methodology described in § 1355.57(b) by meeting the submission requirements of § 1355.52(i)(1).
(d) A title IV-E agency that elects not to transition a S/TACWIS project to a CCWIS project must:
(1) Notify ACF in an APD or Notice of Intent submitted during the transition period of this election; and
(2) Continue to use the S/TACWIS through its life expectancy in accordance with 45 CFR 95.619.
(e) A title IV-E agency that elects not to transition its S/TACWIS project to a CCWIS and fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section is subject to funding recoupment described under § 1355.58(d).
(f) A title IV-E agency with a non-S/TACWIS (as defined in § 1355.51) that elects to build a CCWIS or transition to a CCWIS must meet the submission requirements of § 1355.52(i)(1):
(1) During the transition period to qualify for a CCWIS cost allocation as described at § 1355.57(a); or
(2) At any time to request approval to initiate a new CCWIS and qualify for a CCWIS cost allocation as described at § 1355.57(b).
(a)
(2) The Department may approve the applicable CCWIS cost allocation for an automated function of a project transitioning to a CCWIS if the automated function:
(i) Supports programs authorized under titles IV-B or IV-E, and at least one requirement of § 1355.52 or, if applicable § 1355.54; and
(ii) Is not duplicated within either the CCWIS or systems supporting child welfare contributing agencies and is consistently used by all child welfare users responsible for the area supported by the automated function.
(b)
(2) An automated function of a CCWIS project described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section may qualify for a CCWIS cost allocation if the automated function:
(i) Supports programs authorized under titles IV-B or IV-E, and at least one requirement of § 1355.52 or, if applicable § 1355.54; and
(ii) Is not duplicated within the CCWIS or other systems supporting child welfare contributing agencies and is consistently used by all child welfare users responsible for the area supported by the automated function.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(i) Are approved by the Department;
(ii) Meet the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section; and
(iii) Benefit federal, state or tribal funded participants in programs and allowable activities described in title IV-E of the Act to the title IV-E program.
(2) A title IV-E agency may also allocate CCWIS development costs to title IV-E for the share of system approved activities and automated functions that meet requirements (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section and:
(i) Benefit title IV-B programs; or
(ii) Benefit both title IV-E and child welfare related programs.
(f)
(a) In accordance with 45 CFR 75.371 through 75.375 and 45 CFR 95.635, ACF may suspend title IV-B and title IV-E funding approved in the APD if ACF determines that the title IV-E agency fails to comply with APD requirements in 45 CFR part 95, subpart F, or meet the requirements at § 1355.52 or, if applicable, § 1355.53, 1355.54, or 1355.56.
(b) Suspension of CCWIS funding begins on the date that ACF determines the title IV-E agency failed to:
(1) Comply with APD requirements in 45 CFR part 95, subpart F; or
(2) Meet the requirements at § 1355.52 or, if applicable, § 1355.53, 1355.54, or 1355.56 and has not corrected the failed requirements according to the time frame in the approved APD.
(c) The suspension will remain in effect until the date that ACF:
(1) Determines that the title IV-E agency complies with 45 CFR part 95, subpart F; or
(2) Approves a plan to change the application to meet the requirements at § 1355.52 and, if applicable, § 1355.53, 1355.54, or 1355.56.
(d) If ACF suspends an APD, or the title IV-E agency voluntarily ceases the design, development, installation, operation, or maintenance of an approved CCWIS, ACF may recoup all title IV-E funds claimed for the CCWIS project.
42 U.S.C. 620
(e)
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on July 30, 2015.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |