| Page Range | 56893-57068 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 56961 - Sequoia National Forest, California; Summit Fuels Reduction and Forest Health Project | |
| 80 FR 57067 - Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, Constitution Week, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 57061 - Presidential Determination on Major Drug Transit or Major Illicit Drug Producing Countries for Fiscal Year 2016 | |
| 80 FR 56989 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 80 FR 57024 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 57025 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 56997 - NIOSH Oil and Gas Sector Program-Strategic Plan for Research and Prevention, 2016-2025; Request for Comment | |
| 80 FR 57015 - Steens Mountain Advisory Council; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 56966 - Membership of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Performance Review Board | |
| 80 FR 57014 - Native American Policy for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | |
| 80 FR 57025 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (Acrs) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Future Plant Designs; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 57022 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 57015 - San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 57023 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Radiation Protection and Nuclear Materials; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 57016 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Glen Canyon Survey | |
| 80 FR 57024 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 57023 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (Acrs) Meeting of The Acrs Subcommittee on Radiation Protection and Nuclear Materials; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 56961 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 80 FR 56962 - Foreign-Trade Zone 82-Mobile, Alabama; Application for Subzone; Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC; Calvert, Alabama | |
| 80 FR 56962 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 119-Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; CNH Industrial America, LLC (Agricultural Equipment and Related Subassemblies and Attachments); Benson, Minnesota | |
| 80 FR 56965 - Coral Reef Conservation Program | |
| 80 FR 56962 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 54-Clinton County, New York; Authorization of Production Activity; Swarovski Lighting, Ltd.; (Lighting Fixtures and Parts) Plattsburgh, New York | |
| 80 FR 57046 - Request for Public Comments on NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2015-01: Recommended Best Practices for Protective Orders and Settlement Agreements in Civil Litigation | |
| 80 FR 57028 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Jackson Pollock: Blind Spots” Exhibition | |
| 80 FR 57028 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Poetry in Beauty: The Pre-Raphaelite Art of Marie Spartali Stillman” Exhibition | |
| 80 FR 56969 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records-Electronic Cohort Default Rate Appeals (eCDR Appeals), as Supplemented and Renamed Data Challenges and Appeals Solutions System | |
| 80 FR 56926 - Security Zone, Delaware River; Philadelphia, PA | |
| 80 FR 56982 - Environmental Financial Advisory Committee; Request for Nominations of Candidates to the Environmental Financial Advisory Board | |
| 80 FR 57052 - Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 57052 - MyVA Federal Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 56964 - Fisheries of the U.S. Caribbean; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 56965 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 56894 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps; Correction | |
| 80 FR 56934 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Scup Fishery; Adjustment to the 2015 Winter II Quota | |
| 80 FR 57010 - Committee Name: Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee (HSINAC); Correction | |
| 80 FR 57044 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 57000 - Draft Compliance Policy Guide Crotalaria spp. Seeds in Grains; Availability | |
| 80 FR 57011 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Mortgagee's Certification of Fees and Escrow and Security Bond Against Defects | |
| 80 FR 56931 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Vermilion Snapper | |
| 80 FR 57052 - Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 56968 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 56980 - Bartlett, Jay C.; Notice of Filing | |
| 80 FR 56974 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 56964 - Notice of Federal Consistency Appeal to the Objection of a Proposed Project in Guánica, Puerto Rico | |
| 80 FR 57014 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Fruitport Casino Project, Fruitport Township, Muskegon County, Michigan | |
| 80 FR 57050 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 2009-26 | |
| 80 FR 57050 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8882 | |
| 80 FR 56930 - Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2015 Recreational Accountability Measures and Closure for Gulf of Mexico Greater Amberjack | |
| 80 FR 56932 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Snowy Grouper | |
| 80 FR 56904 - Reorganizations Under Section 368(a)(1)(F); Section 367(a) and Certain Reorganizations Under Section 368(a)(1)(F) | |
| 80 FR 57027 - Data Collection Available for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 56966 - Credit Union Advisory Council Meeting | |
| 80 FR 57020 - Chung-Kuang Chen, M.D.; Dismissal of Proceeding | |
| 80 FR 56933 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Bluefish Fishery and Summer Flounder Fishery; Commercial Quota Harvested for the State of Massachusetts | |
| 80 FR 57041 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 57034 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 80 FR 57032 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 57038 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 80 FR 57043 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 57029 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 57036 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 80 FR 57031 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection | |
| 80 FR 56915 - Cuban Assets Control Regulations | |
| 80 FR 57051 - Reasonable Charges for Inpatient MS-DRGs and SNF Medical Services; V3.17, Fiscal Year 2016 Update | |
| 80 FR 56989 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 56961 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 56976 - DCR Transmission, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 80 FR 56975 - Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 80 FR 56976 - Central New York Oil and Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 80 FR 56973 - Campbell County Wind Farm, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 56976 - Goodwell Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 56977 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 57052 - Commission on Care; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 56991 - Notice of Meetings | |
| 80 FR 56992 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 56989 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 56993 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 57000 - Product-Specific Bioequivalence Recommendations; Draft and Revised Draft Guidances for Industry; Availability | |
| 80 FR 57022 - Notice of Permit Modification Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 80 FR 57021 - Notice of Permit Modification Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 80 FR 56997 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 56995 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 57002 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Animal Food Labeling; Declaration of Certifiable Color Additives | |
| 80 FR 57008 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 57010 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 56960 - Forestry Research Advisory Council | |
| 80 FR 56893 - Post-Employment Conflict of Interest Restrictions; Revision of Departmental Component Designations | |
| 80 FR 56984 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 56983 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 56985 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 57006 - Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 56982 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 56986 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (HWIR-Media) (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 56987 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial Appliances (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 56985 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Paper and Other Web Coating (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 57019 - Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest | |
| 80 FR 57005 - Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 56980 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Data Reporting Requirements for State and Local Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs | |
| 80 FR 56981 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 57020 - Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree | |
| 80 FR 56988 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 80 FR 56969 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board | |
| 80 FR 56973 - PBLJ LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 56973 - Passadumkeag Windpark, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 56977 - Newark Energy Center, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
| 80 FR 56974 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 80 FR 56978 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 56979 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 56999 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 57026 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
| 80 FR 57009 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 57003 - Request for Nominations for Voting Members for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 57002 - Request for Nominations of Individuals and Consumer Organizations for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 57004 - Request for Nominations of Individuals and Industry Organizations for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 57007 - Establishment of the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 56960 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 56967 - Waiver for Certain Defense Items Produced in the United Kingdom | |
| 80 FR 56968 - Availability of the Fiscal Year 2014 Inventory of Contracts for Services | |
| 80 FR 56929 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical Amendments | |
| 80 FR 56939 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts-Further Implementation (DFARS Case 2014-D005) | |
| 80 FR 57020 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure | |
| 80 FR 56935 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Salem, OR | |
| 80 FR 57008 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 57009 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health And Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 57008 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 57010 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health And Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 57055 - Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding “Unfair Methods of Competition” Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act | |
| 80 FR 56898 - Enhancing Support for the Cuban People | |
| 80 FR 57021 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Update With Changes, of a Previously Approved Collection Which Expires January 18, 2018: Department of Justice Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification | |
| 80 FR 57011 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request; Extension of an Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 57012 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Housing Choice Voucher Program | |
| 80 FR 56930 - Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses | |
| 80 FR 56930 - Acquisition of Information Technology | |
| 80 FR 56893 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards | |
| 80 FR 56936 - Review and Approval of Projects | |
| 80 FR 56944 - Civil Penalty Procedures and Factors | |
| 80 FR 56895 - Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) Annual Threshold Adjustments (CARD ACT, HOEPA and ATR/QM) | |
| 80 FR 57028 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on IH 30 from Cooper Street to SH 161, Including the IH 30/SH 360 Interchange, in Texas |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), NFAH.
Final rule.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (“IMLS”) finalizes its portion of the uniform federal assistance rule published by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule is effective on September 21, 2015.
Calvin D. Trowbridge III, Deputy General Counsel, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M Street NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. Email:
On December 19, 2014, the Office of Management and Budget published an interim final rule that provided comprehensive modifications to the principles and requirements for federal awards. 79 FR 75871. The uniform rules were published as 2 CFR part 200. As part of that rulemaking, IMLS adopted part 200, along with an agency-specific addendum in a new part 3187.
IMLS received no relevant comments in response to the rule. Therefore, 2 CFR part 3187, as described in the interim final rule, is adopted with no changes.
For the regulatory findings regarding this rulemaking, please refer to the analysis prepared by OIRA in the interim final rule, which is incorporated herein. 79 FR at 75876.
Office of Government Ethics.
Final rule.
The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is issuing this rule to revoke the designation, for purposes of the one-year post-employment conflict of interest restriction in the United States Code, of an agency departmental component that was abolished.
Effective December 21, 2015.
Kimberly L. Sikora Panza, Assistant Counsel, General Counsel and Legal Policy Division, Office of Government Ethics, Telephone: 202-482-9300; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237.
The Director of OGE (Director) is authorized by 18 U.S.C. 207(h) to designate distinct and separate departmental or agency components in the executive branch for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c). The representational bar of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) usually extends to the whole of any department or agency in which a former senior employee served in any capacity during the year prior to termination from a senior employee position. However, 18 U.S.C. 207(h) provides that whenever the Director determines that an agency or bureau within a department or agency in the executive branch exercises functions which are distinct and separate from the remaining functions of the department or agency and there exists no potential for use of undue influence or unfair advantage based on past Government service, the Director shall by rule designate such agency or bureau as a separate component of that department or agency. As a result, a former senior employee who served in a “parent” department or agency is not barred by 18 U.S.C. 207(c) from making communications to or appearances before any employees of any designated component of that parent, but is barred as to employees of that parent or of other components that have not been separately designated. Moreover, a former senior employee who served in a designated component of a parent department or agency is barred from communicating to or making an appearance before any employee of that component, but is not barred as to any employee of the parent, of another designated component, or of any other agency or bureau of the parent that has not been designated.
Under 18 U.S.C. 207(h)(2), component designations do not apply to persons employed at a rate of pay specified in or fixed according to subchapter II of 5 U.S.C. chapter 53 (the Executive Schedule). Component designations are listed in appendix B to 5 CFR part 2641.
The Director regularly reviews the component designations and determinations and, in consultation with the department or agency concerned, makes such additions and deletions as are necessary. Specifically, the Director “shall, by rule, make or revoke a component designation after considering the recommendation of the designated agency ethics official.” 5 CFR 2641.302(e)(3). Before designating an agency component as distinct and separate for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c), the Director must find that there exists no potential for use of undue influence or unfair advantage based on past Government service, and that the component is an agency or bureau, within a parent agency, that exercises functions which are distinct and separate from the functions of the parent agency and from the functions of other
Pursuant to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 2641.302(e), one department forwarded a written request to OGE to amend its listing in appendix B. After carefully reviewing the requested change in light of the criteria in 18 U.S.C. 207(h) as implemented in 5 CFR 2641.302(c), the Director has determined to grant this request and amend appendix B to 5 CFR part 2641 as explained below.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) has requested that OGE remove the Minerals Management Service (MMS) from its list of component designations. Pursuant to DOI Secretarial Order No. 3299 dated May 19, 2010, the Secretary of the Interior divided MMS into three independent entities and MMS ceased to exist, effective that same date. Because MMS no longer exists, the Director is granting the request of the Department of the Interior and is amending the Department of the Interior listing in appendix B to part 2641 to remove MMS from the component designation list.
As indicated in 5 CFR 2641.302(f), revocation is effective 90 days after the effective date of the rule that revokes the designation. Accordingly, the component designation revocation made in this rulemaking will take effect December 21, 2015. Revocations are not effective as to any individual terminating senior service prior to the expiration of the 90-day period.
As Director of OGE, I certify under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only Federal departments and agencies and current and former Federal employees.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply to this final rule because it does not contain information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), this final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
OGE has determined that this rulemaking involves a non-major rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 8) and will submit a report thereon to the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives and Government Accountability Office in accordance with that law at the same time this rulemaking document is sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication in the
In promulgating this final rule, OGE has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and the applicable principles of regulation set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. This rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget because it deals with agency organization, management, and personnel matters and is not “significant” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
As Director of OGE, I have reviewed this final rule in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.
Conflict of interests, Government employees.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, OGE is amending 5 CFR part 2641 as follows:
5 U.S.C. app. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. 207; E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule; correction.
On July 21, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy published a final rule amending energy conservation standards for packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps. 80 FR 43162. This correction addresses a table labeling error in that final rule.
Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. Email:
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a final rule in the
This rule corrects in 10 CFR 431.97, paragraph (c) all references to Table 4 and Table 5 to read as Table 5 and Table 6, respectively. The effective date for this rule is September 21, 2015.
In FR Doc. 2015-16897, published in the issue of Tuesday, July 21, 2015 (80 FR 43162), on page 43212, in the second column, amendatory instruction 2 is corrected to read as follows:
(c) Each non-standard size packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) and packaged terminal heat pump (PTHP) manufactured on or after October 7, 2010 must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 5 of this section. Each standard size PTAC manufactured on or after October 8, 2012, and before January 1, 2017 must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 5 of this section. Each standard size PTHP manufactured on or after October 8, 2012 must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 5 of this section. Each standard size PTAC manufactured on or after January 1, 2017 must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 6 of this section.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule; official interpretation.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing this final rule amending the regulatory text and official interpretations for Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The Bureau is required to calculate annually the dollar amounts for several provisions in Regulation Z; this final rule reviews the dollar amounts for provisions implementing amendments to TILA under the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). These amounts are adjusted, where
This final rule is effective January 1, 2016.
James Wylie, Counsel, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552 at (202) 435-7700.
The Bureau is amending the regulatory text and official interpretations for Regulation Z, which implements TILA, to update the dollar amounts of various thresholds that are adjusted annually based on the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index. The adjusted dollar amount for the penalty fees safe harbor in 2016 is $27 for a first late payment and $37 for each subsequent violation within the following six months. For HOEPA loans, the adjusted total loan amount threshold is $20,350, effective January 1, 2016. The adjusted statutory fee trigger for HOEPA loans is $1,017, effective January 1, 2016. Effective January 1, 2016, for the purpose of a creditor's determination of a consumer's ability to repay a transaction secured by a dwelling, a covered transaction is not a qualified mortgage unless the transaction's total points and fees do not exceed 3 percent of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $101,749; $3,052 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $61,050 but less than $101,749; 5 percent of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $20,350 but less than $61,050; $1,017 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $12,719 but less than $20,350; and 8 percent of the total loan amount for a loan amount less than $12,719.
In 2010, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) published amendments to Regulation Z implementing the CARD Act, which amended TILA. Pub. L. 111-24, 123 Stat. 1734 (2009). Pursuant to the CARD Act, the Board's Regulation Z amendments established new requirements with respect to open-end consumer credit plans, including requirements for the disclosure of minimum interest charge amounts and the establishment of a safe harbor provision allowing card issuers to impose penalty fees for violating account terms without violating the restrictions on penalty fees established by the CARD Act.
Sections 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) of the Bureau's Regulation Z provide that the minimum interest charge thresholds will be re-calculated annually using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) that was in effect on the preceding June 1. When the cumulative change in the adjusted minimum value derived from applying the annual CPI-W level to the current amounts in §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) has decreased by a whole dollar, the minimum interest charge amounts set forth in the regulation will be decreased by $1.00. This adjustment is based on the CPI-W index in effect on June 1, 2015, which was reported on May 22, 2015. The BLS publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the month. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. The adjustment reflects a 0.8 percent decrease in the CPI-W from April 2014 to April 2015 and is rounded to the nearest $1 increment. This decrease in the CPI-W when applied to the current amounts in §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) did not trigger a decrease in the minimum interest charge threshold of at least $1.00, and therefore the Bureau is not amending §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3).
The Bureau's Regulation Z provides that the safe harbor provision which establishes the permissible fee thresholds in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) will be re-calculated annually using the CPI-W that was in effect on the preceding June 1. The BLS publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the month. This adjustment is based on the CPI-W index in effect on June 1, 2015, which was reported on May 22, 2015. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. When the cumulative change in the adjusted minimum value derived from applying the annual CPI-W level to the current amounts in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) has risen by a whole dollar, those amounts will be increased by $1.00. Similarly, when the cumulative change in the adjusted minimum value derived from applying the annual CPI-W level to the current amounts in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) has decreased by a whole dollar, those amounts will be decreased by $1.00.
On January 10, 2013, the Bureau issued a final rule pursuant to,
Pursuant to section 1431 of the Dodd-Frank Act and § 1026.32(a)(1)(ii)(B) as amended by the 2013 HOEPA Final Rule, implementation of the 2013 HOEPA Final Rule also changed the HOEPA fee trigger to $1,000. The HOEPA 2013 Final Rule provides that this threshold amount will be recalculated annually and the Bureau uses the CPI-U index, as published by the BLS, as the index for adjusting the $1,000 figure. The adjustment to the CPI-U index reported by BLS on May 22, 2015, was the CPI-U index in effect on June 1, and reflects the percentage change from April 2014 to April 2015. The adjustment to the $1,000 figure being adopted here reflects a 0.2 percent decrease in the CPI-U index for this period and is rounded to whole dollars for ease of compliance.
On January 10, 2013, the Bureau issued a final rule pursuant to,
The minimum interest charge amounts for §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) will remain unchanged for the year 2016. Accordingly, the Bureau is not amending these sections.
Effective January 1, 2016, the permissible fee threshold amounts are $27 for § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $37 for § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B). The $27 amount provided for in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) did not change based on the decrease in CPI-W, but the amount provided for in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) did decrease by one dollar. Accordingly, the Bureau is revising § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) to state that the fee imposed for violating the terms or other requirements of an account shall not exceed $37. The Bureau is also amending comment 52(b)(1)(ii)-2.i to preserve a list of the historical thresholds for this provision.
Effective January 1, 2016, for purposes of determining the total loan amount threshold that determines whether a transaction is a high cost mortgage when the points and fees are either 5 percent or 8 percent
Effective January 1, 2016, for purposes of determining whether a consumer credit transaction that is secured by a consumer's principal dwelling and is not otherwise exempt is covered by § 1026.32 (based on the total points and fees payable by the consumer at consummation), a loan is covered if the points and fees exceed $1,017 or 8 percent of the total loan amount, whichever is lower. Comment 32(a)(1)(ii)-1, which lists the adjustments for each year, is amended to reflect the new dollar threshold amount for 2016.
Effective January 1, 2016, for purposes of determining whether a covered transaction is a qualified mortgage, a covered transaction is not a qualified mortgage unless the transaction's total points and fees do not exceed 3 percent of the total loan amount for a loan amount greater than or equal to $101,749; $3,052 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $61,050 but less than $101,749; 5 percent of the total loan amount for loans greater than or equal to $20,350 but less than $61,050; $1,017 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $12,719 but less than $20,350, and 8 percent of the total loan amount for loans less than $12,719. Comment 43(e)(3)(ii)-1, which lists the adjustments for each year, is amended to reflect the new dollar threshold amounts for 2016.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Pursuant to this final rule in Regulation Z, § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) in subpart E is amended and comments 32(a)(1)(ii)-3.ii, 43(e)(3)(ii)-1.ii, 52(b)(1)(ii)-2.i.C in supplement I are added to update the exemption thresholds. The amendments in this final rule are technical and non-discretionary, and they merely apply the method previously established in Regulation Z for determining adjustments to the thresholds. For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320), the Bureau reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.
Advertising, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) $37 if the card issuer previously imposed a fee pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section for a violation of the same type that occurred during the same billing cycle or one of the next six billing cycles; or
The additions read as follows:
1. * * *
ii. For 2016, $1,017, reflecting a .2 percent decrease in the CPI-U from June 2014 to June 2015, rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
3. * * *
ii. For 2016, $20,350, reflecting a .2 percent decrease in the CPI-U from June 2014 to June 2015, rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
52(b)(1)(ii) Safe harbors
i. * * *
C. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $27 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $38 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through December 31, 2015.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to expand the scope of License Exception Support for the Cuban People (SCP) to facilitate engagement between the U.S. and Cuban people; the free flow of information to, from, and among the Cuban people; and independent economic activity generated by Cuba's private sector. It also makes temporary sojourns of most vessels to Cuba eligible for License Exception Aircraft, Vessels and Spacecraft (AVS). Additionally, this rule creates a case-by-case review policy of license applications to export and reexport to Cuba items to ensure the safety of civil aviation and safe operation of commercial passenger aircraft. Finally, it amends the deemed export and deemed reexport license requirements for releases of technology and source code to Cuban nationals; removes certain unintended restrictions on exports and reexports under License Exception SCP and License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD); and makes certain technical corrections to License Exception Agricultural Commodities (AGR).
This rule is effective September 21, 2015.
Foreign Policy Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, Phone: (202) 482-4252.
The United States maintains a comprehensive embargo on trade with Cuba. Pursuant to that embargo, all items that are subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)
On December 17, 2014, the President announced that the United States is taking steps to chart a new course in bilateral relations with Cuba and to further engage and empower the Cuban people. The President explained that these steps build upon actions taken since 2009 that have been aimed at supporting the ability of the Cuban people to gain greater control over their own lives and determine their country's future. On January 16, 2015, the Commerce and Treasury Departments took coordinated actions to implement certain elements of this policy, including changes to licensing policy and license exceptions in the EAR that are consistent with U.S. support for the Cuban people (
The Commerce and Treasury Departments are taking additional coordinated actions in support of the President's Cuba policy. This rule amends the terms of existing license exceptions that are available for Cuba, increases the number of license exception provisions that are available for Cuba, and creates a new licensing policy in the EAR to further promote private sector economic activity in Cuba, facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes, and help ensure safety in civil aviation and safe operation of commercial passenger aircraft. This rule also makes the deemed export and deemed reexport license requirements for Cuba consistent with other sanctioned destinations.
This rule revises § 740.21(b) and (d)(1) of the EAR to remove a requirement that items must be sold or donated when exported or reexported to authorized end-users in Cuba under License Exception Support for the Cuban People (SCP). Paragraph (b) authorizes certain exports and reexports to improve living conditions and support independent economic activity in Cuba. Paragraph (d)(1) authorizes certain exports and reexports to improve the free flow of information to, from, and among the Cuban people. When License Exception SCP was created in January 2015, BIS included text regarding sales or donations in paragraphs (b) and (d)(1) to clarify that the provisions were not limited to exports and reexports of
This rule revises paragraph (c)(2) of License Exception SCP to authorize certain temporary
This rule adds a new paragraph (d)(4) to License Exception SCP to authorize exports and reexports of commodities and software to individuals and private sector entities in Cuba that will be used to develop software that will improve the free flow of information or that will support the private sector activities described in paragraph (b) of License Exception SCP. The Cuban Government, Cuban Communist Party and certain officials thereof are designated as ineligible end users for commodities and software exported under paragraph (d)(4). Existing text in paragraph (d) limits the commodities and software authorized for export or reexport under this new paragraph (d)(4) to those that are either EAR99 (
This rule adds a new paragraph (e) to License Exception SCP. Paragraph (e)(1) authorizes the export and reexport to Cuba of certain items for use by United States Persons (as defined in § 772.1 of the EAR) to establish, maintain, or operate a physical presence in Cuba. Any resulting payments associated with such a physical presence, such as lease payments, are permitted only to the extent authorized by § 515.573 of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR 515.573). To be eligible for the exception under paragraph (e)(1), the end-users must be (1) entities organizing or conducting educational activities in Cuba authorized by the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) pursuant to 31 CFR 515.565(a); (2) entities providing mail or parcel transmission services authorized by OFAC pursuant to 31 CFR 515.542(a) or providing cargo transportation services in connection with trade involving Cuba authorized by OFAC or exempt from the prohibitions of 31 CFR part 515 as specified in 31 CFR 515.206; (3) religious organizations engaging in religious activities in Cuba authorized by OFAC pursuant to 31 CFR 515.566; (4) persons engaged in transactions authorized by OFAC pursuant to 31 CFR 515.559(b); (5) persons that export or reexport items to Cuba that are exempt from the prohibitions of 31 CFR part 515 as specified in 31 CFR 515.206; (6) providers of travel services or carrier services authorized by OFAC pursuant to 31 CFR 515.572; or (7) persons that export or reexport to Cuba pursuant to a license issued by BIS or a license exception authorized by § 746.2(a)(1) of the EAR.
Items eligible for export and reexport to Cuba pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of License Exception SCP are limited to those designated as EAR99 (
Paragraph (e)(2) of License Exception SCP authorizes the export and reexport to Cuba of certain items for use by certain additional eligible end-users to
Paragraph (e)(3) of License Exception SCP authorizes the export and reexport to Cuba of certain items to be given away for free as gifts for promotional purposes, such as pens, notepads, hats, and t-shirts. Items eligible for export or reexport to Cuba pursuant to paragraph (e)(3) are limited to those items of a type normally given away for free as gifts for promotional purposes that are designated as EAR99.
BIS is creating paragraph (e) of License Exception SCP to facilitate engagement between the U.S. and Cuban people; the free flow of information to, from, and among the Cuban people; and independent economic activity in Cuba generated by Cuba's private sector.
This rule also creates new paragraph (f) to License Exception SCP to authorize certain temporary (not to exceed one year) exports and reexports to Cuba of EAR99 items and items controlled on the CCL only for anti-terrorism reasons. Paragraph (f) authorizes exports and reexports of the following:
• Commodities and software as tools of trade for use by the exporters or employees of the exporters to install, service or repair items that are subject to the EAR and that have been exported or reexported to Cuba under a license or license exception, or foreign-origin items that are not subject to the EAR but are owned and used exclusively by individuals or private sector entities but not the Cuban Government, the Cuban Communist Party or certain officials thereof in Cuba;
• Technology as tools of trade for use by certain persons for the installation, servicing or repair of items that are subject to the EAR and that have been exported or reexported to Cuba under a license or license exception, or foreign-origin items that are not subject to the EAR but are owned and used exclusively by individuals or private sector entities but not the Cuban Government, the Cuban Communist Party or certain officials thereof in Cuba;
• Kits of replacement parts or components for items that have been exported or reexported to Cuba under a license or license exception, or foreign-origin items that are not subject to the EAR but are owned and used exclusively by individuals or private sector entities but not the Cuban Government, the Cuban Communist Party or certain officials thereof in Cuba;
• Commodities and software for exhibition or demonstration at trade shows or to parties eligible to receive items under License Exception SCP; and
• Containers that are necessary for shipment of commodities being exported or reexported to Cuba under a license or license exception; BIS is creating paragraph (f) of License Exception SCP to help support authorized travel and commerce.
This rule revises § 740.19(a) of the EAR to remove references to sales or donations of eligible items authorized under License Exception CCD. License Exception CCD authorizes certain exports and reexports to improve the free flow of information to, from, and among the Cuban and Sudanese people. When License Exception CCD was created in September 2009 to authorize certain exports and reexports to Cuba, the license exception included a donation requirement. BIS revised License Exception CCD in January 2015 to authorize sales, in addition to donations, and to update the list of eligible items. (Sudan was added as an authorized destination in February 2015.) Instead of merely removing the word “donated” from paragraph (a) of License Exception CCD, the January 2015 revision added the phrase “either sold or” to that paragraph. That phrasing inadvertently precluded other types of exports and reexports intended to be authorized by the license exception, such as those involving leased or loaned items. Consequently, this rule removes phrase “either sold or donated” from paragraph (a) to eliminate that unintended restriction.
This rule revises § 746.2(a)(1)(x) of the EAR to make paragraphs (b) and (d) of License Exception AVS available for Cuba. It also amends § 740.15(b) and (d) of the EAR to add to License Exception AVS paragraphs (b)(4) and (d)(6) described below that apply only to Cuba.
Paragraph (b) of License Exception AVS authorizes certain exports and reexports of equipment and spare parts for permanent use on vessels and aircraft departing the United States. The paragraph also authorizes certain exports of ship and plane stores for use on board vessels and aircraft departing the United States. Paragraph (d) of License Exception AVS authorizes certain exports and reexports of vessels on temporary sojourn. Paragraph (a) of License Exception AVS, which authorizes certain exports and reexports of aircraft on temporary sojourn, was, prior to publication of this rule, available for Cuba.
This rule adds a note to paragraph (a) prohibiting an aircraft exported or reexported to a country pursuant to that paragraph from remaining in that country for more than seven consecutive days before it departs for a country to which it may be exported without a license or the United States.
This rule also adds new paragraph (b)(4) to License Exception AVS to specify that the commodities eligible for export and reexport to Cuba pursuant to paragraph (b) are limited to those designated as EAR99 (
Additionally, this rule adds new paragraph (d)(6) to License Exception AVS. Paragraph (d)(6) provides that only certain categories of vessels, when engaged in specified activities are eligible for the license exception when destined for Cuba. The types of vessels and activities eligible for temporary sojourn to Cuba are as follows.
(1) Cargo vessels for hire for use in the transportation of items.
(2) Passenger vessels for hire for use in the transportation of passengers and/or items. Vessels used to transport both passengers and items to Cuba may transport automobiles only if the export or reexport of the automobiles has been authorized by a separate license issued by BIS (
(3) Recreational vessels destined for Cuba that that are used in connection with travel authorized by the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
Finally, this rule adds a note to paragraph (d) prohibiting a vessel exported or reexported to a country pursuant to that paragraph from remaining in that country for more than 14 consecutive days before it departs for a country to which it may be exported without a license or the United States.
BIS is making paragraphs (b) and (d) of License Exception AVS available for Cuba to help facilitate authorized travel and commerce. For clarity, BIS is adding notes to paragraphs (a) and (d) specifying the amount of time an aircraft or vessel exported or reexported to a country pursuant to the paragraphs may remain in that country. Previously, BIS interpreted paragraph (a) to authorize temporary sojourns consisting of only one overnight stay while in-country (
This rule amends the licensing policy for Cuba in § 746.2 of the EAR to add a policy of case-by-case review of license applications for exports and reexports of items to ensure safety in civil aviation and safe operation of commercial passenger aircraft. Items that will be reviewed pursuant to this policy include aircraft parts and components related to safety of flight, weather observation stations, airport safety equipment, and commodities used for security screening of passengers. BIS is adding this licensing policy to support international aviation and passenger safety.
This rule amends the license requirements for Cuba in § 746.2 of the EAR to specify that a license is required for the release of technology or source code on the CCL to Cuban nationals in the United States or a third country, but not for the deemed export or deemed reexport of technology or source code designated as EAR99. As described in § 734.2(b), any release of technology or source code subject to the EAR is deemed to be an export to the home country or countries of the foreign national unless the foreign national is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or unless the foreign national is a protected individual under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3)). Additionally, any release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national of another country is deemed to be a reexport to the home country or countries of the foreign national unless the foreign national is lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Prior to this amendment, a license was required for the deemed export or deemed reexport of any technology or source code subject to the EAR to a Cuban national. BIS is making this change for consistency with the current deemed export and deemed reexport license requirements for other sanctioned destinations.
On July 22, 2015, BIS published a rule implementing the rescission of Cuba's State Sponsor of Terrorism designation (80 FR 43314). Among other amendments, that rule removed Cuba from Country Group E:1 in Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR, which changed the general
Paragraph (a) of the definition of U.S. Person in § 772.1 of the EAR identifies the EAR provisions to which the definition applies. This rule adds a reference to § 740.21(e)(1) to paragraph (a) of the definition. Paragraph (b) of the definition identifies EAR provisions that have definitions that are specific to those provisions. This rule adds a reference to § 740.21(f)(2) to paragraph (b) of the definition. Both changes are to make those paragraphs conform to changes that this rule makes to § 740.21.
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
An aircraft exported or reexported to a country pursuant to this paragraph (a) may not remain in that country for more than seven consecutive days before it departs for a country to which it may be exported without a license or the United States.
(b) * * *
(4)
(d) * * *
(6)
(i) Cargo vessels for hire for use in the transportation of items;
(ii) Passenger vessels for hire for use in the transportation of passengers and/or items; and
(iii) Recreational vessels that are used in connection with travel authorized by the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
A vessel exported or reexported to a country pursuant to this paragraph (d) may not remain in that country for more than 14 consecutive days before it departs for a country to which it may be exported without a license or the United States.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) The
(iii) The items must remain under the traveler's “effective control” while in Cuba.
(d) * * *
(4) The export or reexport to Cuba of commodities or software that will be used by individuals or private sector entities to develop software that will improve the free flow of information or that will support the private sector activities described in paragraph (b) of this section.
The following are ineligible end-users:
(i) The Cuban Government or the Cuban Communist Party and organizations they administer or control;
(ii) Ministers and vice-ministers; members of the Council of State; members of the Council of Ministers; members and employees of the National Assembly of People's Power; members of any provincial assembly; local sector chiefs of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution; Director Generals and sub-Director Generals and higher of all Cuban ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT); employees of the Ministry of Defense (MINFAR); secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of Labor of Cuba (CTC) and its component unions; chief editors, editors and deputy editors of Cuban state-run media organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; or members and employees of the Supreme Court (Tribuno Supremo Nacional); and
(iii) Members of the Politburo; the Central Committee; Department Heads of the Central Committee; employees of the Central Committee; and the secretaries and first secretaries of provincial Party central committees.
(e)
(1) The export or reexport to Cuba of items for use by eligible end-users to establish, maintain, or operate a physical presence in Cuba. The items authorized pursuant to this paragraph (e)(1) are limited to those designated as EAR99 (
(i) Entities organizing or conducting educational activities in Cuba authorized by the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) pursuant to 31 CFR 515.565(a);
(ii) Entities providing mail or parcel transmission services authorized by OFAC pursuant to 31 CFR 515.542(a) or providing cargo transportation services in connection with trade involving Cuba authorized by OFAC or exempt from the prohibitions of 31 CFR part 515 as specified in 31 CFR 515.206;
(iii) Religious organizations engaging in religious activities in Cuba authorized by OFAC pursuant to 31 CFR 515.566;
(iv) Persons engaged in transactions authorized by OFAC pursuant to 31 CFR 515.559(b);
(v) Persons that export or reexport items to Cuba that are exempt from the prohibitions of 31 CFR part 515 as specified in 31 CFR 515.206;
(vi) Providers of travel services or carrier services authorized by OFAC pursuant to 31 CFR 515.572; or
(vii) Persons that export or reexport to Cuba pursuant to a license issued by BIS or a license exception authorized by § 746.2(a)(1) of the EAR.
(2) The export or reexport to Cuba of certain items for use by eligible end-users to establish, maintain, or operate a physical presence in Cuba. To be eligible for this paragraph (e)(2), the end-users must be authorized by OFAC to provide telecommunications services and establish telecommunications facilities pursuant to 31 CFR 515.542(b) through (e) or to provide internet-based services pursuant to 31 CFR 515.578, including subsidiaries, branches, offices, joint ventures, franchises, and agency or other business relationships with any entity or individual who is a national of Cuba. The items authorized pursuant to this paragraph are limited to those designated as EAR99 (
(3) The export or reexport to Cuba of items to be given away for free as gifts for promotional purposes. Items authorized pursuant to this paragraph (e)(3) are limited to those items of a type normally given away for free as gifts for promotional purposes that are designated as EAR99 (
Any resulting payments associated with establishing maintaining or operating a physical presence in Cuba, such as lease payments, are permitted only to the extent authorized by § 515.573 of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR 515.573).
(f)
(1)
(i) Use of secure connections, such as Virtual Private Network connections, when accessing IT networks for activities that involve the transmission and use of the software authorized under this license exception;
(ii) Use of password systems on electronic devices that store the software authorized under this license exception; and
(iii) Use of personal firewalls on electronic devices that store the software authorized under this license exception.
(2)
(i) Use of secure connections, such as Virtual Private Network connections, when accessing IT networks for email
(ii) Use of password systems on electronic devices that will store the technology authorized under this license exception; and
(iii) Use of personal firewalls on electronic devices that will store the technology authorized under this license exception.
(3)
(i) The kits remain under “effective control” of the exporter or reexporter or its employees; and
(ii) All parts and components in the kit are returned, except that one-for-one replacements may be made in accordance with the requirements of License Exception Servicing and Replacement of Parts and Equipment (RPL) and the defective parts and components returned (see Parts, Components, Accessories and Attachments in § 740.10(a)).
(4)
(f). The commodities or software must remain under the “effective control” of the exporter or reexporter or its private sector agent, may not be exhibited or demonstrated at any one location for more than 30 days and may not be used for more than the minimum extent required for effective exhibition or demonstration.
(5)
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(a)
(1) * * *
(x) Aircraft, vessels and spacecraft (AVS) for certain aircraft on temporary sojourn; equipment and spare parts for permanent use on a vessel or aircraft, and ship and plane stores; or vessels on temporary sojourn (see § 740.15(a), (b), and (d) of the EAR).
(2)
(b) * * *
(6) License applications for exports or reexports of items to ensure safety in civil aviation, including the safe operation of commercial passenger aircraft will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(b) See also §§ 740.9, 740.14, and 740.21(f)(2) and parts 746 and 760 of the EAR for definitions of “U.S. person” that are specific to those sections and parts.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations that provide guidance regarding the qualification of a transaction as a corporate reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F) by virtue of being a mere change of identity, form, or place of organization of one corporation (F reorganization). This document also contains final regulations relating to F reorganizations in which the transferor corporation is a domestic corporation and the acquiring corporation is a foreign corporation (an outbound F reorganization). These regulations will affect corporations engaging in transactions that could qualify as F reorganizations (including outbound F reorganizations) and their shareholders.
Douglas C. Bates, (202) 317-6065 (not a toll-free number).
This Treasury decision contains final regulations (the Final Regulations) that amend 26 CFR part 1 under sections 367 and 368 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). These Final Regulations provide guidance relating to the qualification of transactions as F reorganizations and the treatment of outbound F reorganizations.
In general, upon the exchange of property, gain or loss must be recognized if the new property differs materially, in kind or extent, from the old property.
Section 368(a)(1) describes several types of transactions that constitute reorganizations. One of these, described in section 368(a)(1)(F), is “a mere change in identity, form, or place of organization of one corporation, however effected” (a Mere Change). One court has described the F reorganization as follows:
[The F reorganization] encompass[es] only the simplest and least significant of corporate changes. The (F)-type reorganization presumes that the surviving corporation is the same corporation as the predecessor in every respect, except for minor or technical differences. For instance, the (F) reorganization typically has been understood to comprehend only such insignificant modifications as the reincorporation of the same corporate business with the same assets and the same stockholders surviving under a new charter either in the same or in a different State, the renewal of a corporate charter having a limited life, or the conversion of a U.S.-chartered savings and loan association to a State-chartered institution.
Although the statutory description of an F reorganization is short, and courts have described F reorganizations as simple, questions have arisen regarding the requirements of F reorganizations. In particular, when a corporation changes its identity, form, or place of incorporation, questions have arisen as to what other changes (if any) may occur, either before, during, or after the Mere Change, without affecting the status of the Mere Change (that is, what other changes are compatible with the Mere Change). These questions can become more pronounced if the transaction intended to qualify as an F reorganization is composed of a series of steps occurring over a period of days or weeks. Moreover, changes in identity, form, or place of organization are often undertaken to facilitate other changes that are difficult to effect in the corporation's current form or place of organization.
On January 16, 1990, the Treasury Department and the IRS published temporary regulations (TD 8280) in the
On August 12, 2004, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-106889-04) (2004 Proposed Regulations) in the
On February 25, 2005, the Treasury Department and the IRS published final regulations (TD 9182) (2005 Regulations) in the
A corporation that continues to inhabit its corporate shell can change in many respects. Although these changes may have federal income tax consequences, they do not result in the corporation being treated for federal income tax purposes as a new corporation or as transferring its assets. Nor do these changes cause the corporation's taxable year to close. Unlike a partnership that might terminate for federal income tax purposes upon the transfer of a given percentage of the partnership interests, a corporation that continues to inhabit a single corporate shell continues to exist for federal tax purposes, independent of the identity of its shareholders or the composition of its assets.
The underlying premise of the 2004 Proposed Regulations was that, if a corporate enterprise changes its corporate shell while adhering to four proposed requirements for a Mere Change, the resulting corporation
As noted in section 1. of this Background, questions have arisen as to whether other changes are compatible with a Mere Change. In addressing these questions, the 2004 Proposed Regulations embraced the principles derived from the language of section 368(a)(1)(F), the historic practice of the IRS and courts in applying that statutory definition, and functional differences between F reorganizations and other types of reorganizations.
Like other types of reorganizations, an F reorganization generally involves, in form, two corporations, one (a Transferor Corporation) that transfers (or is deemed to transfer) assets to the other (a Resulting Corporation). However, the statute describes an F reorganization as being with respect to “one corporation” and provides for treatment that differs from that accorded other types of reorganizations in which assets are transferred from one corporation to another (Asset Reorganizations). As noted in the preamble to the 2004 Proposed Regulations, “an F reorganization is treated for most purposes of the Code as if the reorganized corporation were the same entity as the corporation in existence before the reorganization.” Thus, the tax treatment accorded an F reorganization is more consistent with that of a single continuing corporation in that (1) the taxable year of the Transferor Corporation does not close and includes the operations of the Resulting Corporation for the remainder of the year, and (2) the Resulting Corporation's losses may be carried back to taxable years of the Transferor Corporation.
Because an F reorganization must involve “one corporation,” and continuation of the taxable year and loss carrybacks from the Resulting Corporation to the Transferor Corporation are allowed, the statute cannot accommodate transactions in which the Resulting Corporation has preexisting activities or tax attributes.
Similarly, the requirement that there be “one corporation” means that the status of the Resulting Corporation as the successor to the Transferor Corporation must be unambiguous. Accordingly, and consistent with the historical interpretation of the statute, the 2004 Proposed Regulations required that, for a transaction to qualify as a Mere Change, the Transferor Corporation be liquidated for tax purposes.
In
Based on these principles, the 2004 Proposed Regulations would have imposed four requirements for an F reorganization, with limited exceptions. First, all the stock of the Resulting Corporation, including stock issued before the transfer, would have had to be issued in respect of stock of the Transferor Corporation. Second, a change in the ownership of the corporation in the transaction would not have been allowed, except a change that had no effect other than that of a redemption of less than all the shares of the corporation. Third, the Transferor Corporation would have had to completely liquidate in the transaction. Fourth, the Resulting Corporation would not have been allowed to hold any property or possess any tax attributes (including those specified in section 381(c)) immediately before the transfer.
As discussed in the preamble to the 2004 Proposed Regulations, the first two requirements reflected the Supreme Court's holding in
Under the second requirement (no change in ownership), redemptions of less than all the shares of the corporation would have been allowed. The law was not completely clear as to the effect of redemptions on the qualification of a transaction as an F reorganization. Some authorities supported the proposition that changes in ownership resulting from redemptions were compatible with an F reorganization.
The third requirement and the fourth requirement implemented the statutory requirement that an F reorganization involve only one corporation. Although the third requirement was that the Transferor Corporation completely liquidate in the transaction, a legal dissolution was not required. This accommodation allowed the value of the Transferor Corporation's charter to be preserved. Further, the Proposed Regulations would have allowed the Transferor Corporation to retain a nominal amount of assets to preserve its legal existence.
The fourth requirement would have precluded the Resulting Corporation from holding any property or having any tax attributes immediately before the transfer. Nevertheless, the Proposed Regulations would have allowed the Resulting Corporation to hold or to have held a nominal amount of assets to facilitate its organization or preserve its existence, and to have tax attributes related to these assets. In addition, the Proposed Regulations provided that the fourth requirement would not be violated if, before the transfer, the
The Treasury Department and the IRS concluded that the words “however effected” in the statutory definition of F reorganization reflect a Congressional intent to treat as an F reorganization a series of transactions that together result in a Mere Change. The 2004 Proposed Regulations reflected this view by providing that a series of related transactions that together result in a Mere Change may qualify as an F reorganization. This view is consistent with the IRS's historical interpretation of the statute.
The Treasury Department and the IRS also recognized that an F reorganization may be a step in a larger transaction that effects more than a Mere Change. For example, in Situation 1 of Rev. Rul. 96-29, 1996-1 CB 50, the IRS ruled that a reincorporation qualified as an F reorganization even though it was a step in a transaction in which the reincorporated entity issued common stock in a public offering and redeemed preferred stock having a value of 40 percent of the aggregate value of its outstanding stock immediately prior to the offering. In Situation 2 of the same ruling, the IRS ruled that a reincorporation of a corporation in another state qualified as an F reorganization even though it was a step in a transaction in which the reincorporated entity acquired the business of another entity.
Consistent with Rev. Rul. 96-29, the 2004 Proposed Regulations provided that events occurring before or after a transaction or series of transactions that otherwise constitutes a Mere Change and related thereto would not cause the Mere Change to fail to qualify as an F reorganization (the Related Events Rule). The 2004 Proposed Regulations further provided that the qualification of the Mere Change as an F reorganization would not alter the treatment of the other events.
The Related Events Rule would have operated in tandem with the proposal, which was made a final rule in the 2005 Regulations, that the continuity of interest and continuity of business enterprise requirements of § 1.368-1(d) and (e) that are generally applicable to reorganizations under section 368 do not apply to F reorganizations. These rules, together, would have focused the F reorganization analysis on the discrete step or series of steps (to use the words of many observers, those steps occurring “in a bubble”) that may satisfy the four requirements for a Mere Change, even if these steps constitute part of a larger series of steps. In other words, these rules rejected the application of step transaction principles to integrate all the steps of the overall plan or agreement to accomplish the larger transaction and thereby potentially prevent the transaction from qualifying as an F reorganization.
Overall, the 2004 Proposed Regulations would have found certain changes occurring in connection with a change in identity, form, or place of organization to be compatible with the Mere Change requirement. Some changes could have been effected simultaneously with the transaction or series of transactions otherwise qualifying as an F reorganization because these changes would not have violated any of the four proposed requirements for a Mere Change. Thus, for example, a corporation could have bought, sold, or exchanged property, borrowed money, or repaid debt because the 2004 Proposed Regulations would not have required an identity of assets between the Transferor Corporation and the Resulting Corporation. Other changes could not have been effected simultaneously with the potential F reorganization, but could have occurred before or after the F reorganization “in a bubble,” for example, the issuance of new equity capital or the transfer of shares to new shareholders.
Prior to the issuance of the 2004 Proposed Regulations, much commentary had focused on whether distributions of money or other property in F reorganizations were distributions to which section 356 applied, or whether sections 301 and 302, and related provisions, governed the treatment of these distributions. The Treasury Department and the IRS believed it appropriate to treat these distributions as transactions separate from the F reorganization, even if they occurred immediately before or immediately after the F reorganization, after some of the transactions making up the F reorganization and before other transactions making up the F reorganization, or as part of the same plan as the F reorganization.
After consideration of the comments received with respect to the 2004 Proposed Regulations and the 2005 Regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS are publishing, in this Treasury decision, additional Final Regulations regarding F reorganizations. The Final Regulations generally adopt the provisions of the 2004 Proposed Regulations not previously adopted in the 2005 Regulations, with changes discussed in the remainder of this preamble, and several clarifying, non-substantive changes. The Final Regulations also include rules regarding outbound F reorganizations by adopting, without substantive change, the provisions of the 1990 Proposed Regulations relating to section 367(a) and making conforming revisions to other regulations.
Like the 2004 Proposed Regulations, the Final Regulations are based on the premise that it is appropriate to treat the Resulting Corporation in an F reorganization as the functional equivalent of the Transferor Corporation and to give its corporate enterprise roughly the same freedom of action as would be accorded a corporation that remains within its original corporate shell. The Final Regulations provide that a transaction that involves an actual or deemed transfer of property by a Transferor Corporation to a Resulting Corporation is a Mere Change that qualifies as an F reorganization if six requirements are satisfied (with certain exceptions). The Final Regulations provide that a transaction or a series of related transactions to be tested against the six requirements (a Potential F
In the context of determining whether a Potential F Reorganization qualifies as a Mere Change, deemed asset transfers include, but are not limited to, those transfers treated as occurring as a result of an entity classification election under paragraph § 301.7701-3(c)(1)(i), as well as transfers resulting from the application of step transaction principles. One example of such a transfer would be the deemed asset transfer by the Transferor Corporation to the Resulting Corporation resulting from a so-called “liquidation-reincorporation” transaction.
Four of the six requirements are generally adopted from the 2004 Proposed Regulations, and the fifth and sixth requirements address comments received with respect to the Proposed Regulations regarding “overlap transactions” (for example, transactions involving the Transferor Corporation's transfer of its assets to a potential successor corporation other than the Resulting Corporation in a transaction that could also qualify for nonrecognition treatment under a different provision of the Code). Viewed together, these six requirements ensure that an F reorganization involves only one continuing corporation and is neither an acquisitive transaction nor a divisive transaction. Thus, an F reorganization does not include a transaction that involves a shift in ownership of the enterprise, an introduction of assets in exchange for equity (other than that raised by the Transferor Corporation prior to the F reorganization), or a division of assets or tax attributes of a Transferor Corporation between or among the Resulting Corporation and other acquiring corporations. An F reorganization also does not include a transaction that leads to multiple potential acquiring corporations having competing claims to the Transferor Corporation's tax attributes under section 381.
Certain exceptions, similar to those of the 2004 Proposed Regulations, apply to these six requirements. Three of these exceptions allow de minimis departures from the six requirements for purposes unrelated to federal income taxation.
As in the 2004 Proposed Regulations, the first and the second requirements of the Final Regulations reflect the Supreme Court's holding in
Consistent with the 2004 Proposed Regulations, the first requirement in the Final Regulations is that immediately after the Potential F Reorganization, all the stock of the Resulting Corporation must have been distributed (or deemed distributed) in exchange for stock of the Transferor Corporation in the Potential F Reorganization. The 2004 Proposed Regulations focused on the issuance of the stock of the Resulting Corporation in respect of stock of the Transferor Corporation. The Treasury and the IRS believe, however, that a focus on the distribution of the stock of the Resulting Corporation better matches the transactions that occur (or are deemed to occur) in reorganizations.
Also consistent with the 2004 Proposed Regulations, the second requirement is that, subject to certain exceptions, the same person or persons own all the stock of the Transferor Corporation at the beginning of the Potential F Reorganization and all of the stock of the Resulting Corporation at the end of the Potential F Reorganization, in identical proportions.
Notwithstanding these requirements and also consistent with the Proposed Regulations, the Final Regulations allow the Resulting Corporation to issue a de minimis amount of stock not in respect of stock of the Transferor Corporation, to facilitate the organization or maintenance of the Resulting Corporation. This rule is designed to allow, for example, reincorporation in a jurisdiction that requires minimum capitalization, two or more shareholders, or ownership of shares by directors. It is also intended to allow a transfer of assets to certain pre-existing entities, for reasons explained further in section 2.B. of this Explanation of Revisions.
In addition, the Final Regulations allow changes of ownership that result from either (i) a holder of stock in the Transferor Corporation exchanging that stock for stock of equivalent value in the Resulting Corporation having terms different from those of the stock in the Transferor Corporation or (ii) receiving a distribution of money or other property from either the Transferor Corporation or the Resulting Corporation, whether or not in redemption of stock of the Transferor Corporation or the Resulting Corporation. In other words, the corporation involved in a Mere Change may also recapitalize, redeem its stock, or make distributions to its shareholders, without causing the Potential F Reorganization to fail to qualify as an F reorganization. These exceptions reflect the determination of the Treasury Department and the IRS that allowing certain transactions to occur contemporaneously with an F reorganization is appropriate so long as one corporation could effect the transaction without undergoing an F reorganization. These exceptions also reflect the case law, discussed in section 3.A. of the Background, holding that certain transactions qualify as F reorganizations even if some shares are redeemed in the transaction, and rulings by the IRS that a recapitalization may happen at the same time as an F reorganization. See, for example, Rev. Rul. 2003-19, 2003-1 CB 468, and Rev. Rul. 2003-48, 2003-1 CB 863 (both providing that certain demutualization transactions may involve both E reorganizations and F reorganizations).
As in the 2004 Proposed Regulations, the third requirement (limiting the assets and attributes of the Resulting Corporation immediately before the transaction) and the fourth requirement (requiring the liquidation of the Transferor Corporation) under the Final Regulations reflect the statutory mandate that an F reorganization involve only one corporation. Although the Final Regulations generally require the Resulting Corporation not to hold any property or have any tax attributes immediately before the Potential F Reorganization, as in the 2004 Proposed Regulations, the Resulting Corporation is allowed to hold a de minimis amount of assets to facilitate its organization or preserve its existence (and to have tax attributes related to these assets), and the Resulting Corporation is allowed to hold proceeds of borrowings undertaken in connection with the Potential F Reorganization.
A commenter responding to the 2004 Proposed Regulations stated that the Final Regulations should allow the Resulting Corporation to hold, in addition to the proceeds of borrowings, cash proceeds of stock issuances before the Mere Change. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not believe that the Resulting Corporation should be allowed to issue more than a de minimis amount of stock before a transaction constituting a Mere Change because that would allow a substantial investment of new capital and/or new shareholders, or an acquisition of assets from more than one corporation. This rule does not, however, preclude the Transferor Corporation from issuing new stock before a Potential F Reorganization constituting an F reorganization. Nor does it preclude the Resulting Corporation from issuing new stock after the Potential F Reorganization.
Under the fourth requirement in the Final Regulations, the Transferor Corporation must completely liquidate in the Potential F Reorganization for federal income tax purposes. Nevertheless, as in the 2004 Proposed Regulations, the Transferor Corporation is not required to legally dissolve and is allowed to retain a de minimis amount of assets for the sole purpose of preserving its legal existence.
The fifth requirement under the Final Regulations is that immediately after the Potential F Reorganization, no corporation other than the Resulting Corporation may hold property that was held by the Transferor Corporation immediately before the Potential F Reorganization, if such other corporation would, as a result, succeed to and take into account the items of the transferor corporation described in section 381(c). Thus, a transaction that divides the property or tax attributes of a Transferor Corporation between or among acquiring corporations, or that leads to potential competing claims to such tax attributes, will not qualify as a Mere Change.
The sixth requirement under the Final Regulations is that immediately after the Potential F Reorganization, the Resulting Corporation may not hold property acquired from a corporation other than the Transferor Corporation if the Resulting Corporation would, as a result, succeed to and take into account the items of such other corporation described in section 381(c). Thus, a transaction that involves simultaneous acquisitions of property and tax attributes from multiple transferor corporations (such as the transaction described in Rev. Rul. 58-422, 1958-2 CB 145) will not qualify as a Mere Change.
These requirements address a comment received with respect to the second requirement of the 2004 Proposed Regulations that there not be a change in the ownership of the corporation in the transaction, except a change that has no effect other than a redemption of less than all the shares of the corporation. The comment stated that allowing a corporation to distribute property in redemption of less than all of its shares could result in satisfying both the requirements for an F reorganization with respect to one transferee corporation and the requirements of another nonrecognition provision with respect to a different transferee corporation. The result would be uncertainty as to which corporation should succeed to the Transferor Corporation's tax attributes.
For example, assume that corporation P owns all of the stock of corporation T, and T operates two separate businesses, Business 1 (worth $297) and Business 2 (worth $3). Further assume that T merges into newly formed corporation R, and that, pursuant to the merger agreement, P receives Business 1 and all of R's stock in exchange for surrendering all of the T stock, and R receives Business 2. Under the 2004 Proposed Regulations, the transaction could have qualified as an F reorganization, with T as the Transferor Corporation and R as the Resulting Corporation, because the only change in ownership is a redemption of less than all of the T shares. However, because T transfers 99 percent of its historic business assets (Business 1) to P in exchange for all of T's stock, the transaction might also qualify as a complete liquidation under sections 332 and 337 or an upstream reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(C) of T into P. This overlap—with two potential acquiring corporations—would present unintended complexities. For example, as discussed above, there would be uncertainty as to which corporation should succeed to T's tax attributes.
Accordingly, notwithstanding the overall flexibility provided with respect to transactions occurring contemporaneously with a Mere Change, the Final Regulations provide that a Mere Change cannot accommodate transactions that occur at the same time as the Potential F Reorganization if those other transactions could result in a corporation other than the Resulting Corporation acquiring the tax attributes of the Transferor Corporation.
The same commenter requested clarification of the treatment of combinations of several corporations into a single, newly-created corporation. Consistent with the statutory language of section 368(a)(1)(F), the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that a Mere Change involves only one Transferor Corporation and one Resulting Corporation. Thus, the Final Regulations provide that only one Transferor Corporation can transfer property to the Resulting Corporation in the Potential F Reorganization. If more than one corporation transfers assets to the Resulting Corporation in a Potential F Reorganization, none of the transfers would constitute an F reorganization.
In some cases, business or legal considerations may require extra steps to complete a transaction that is intended to qualify as a Mere Change. As discussed in section 3.B.i. of the Background, the Treasury Department and the IRS concluded that the words “however effected” in the statutory definition of F reorganization reflect a Congressional intent to treat a series of transactions that together result in a Mere Change as an F reorganization, even if the transfer (or deemed transfer) of property from the Transferor Corporation to the Resulting Corporation occurs indirectly. The Final Regulations confirm this conclusion by providing that a Potential F Reorganization consisting of a series of related transactions that together result in a Mere Change may qualify as an F
As discussed in section 3.B.ii. of the Background, the Treasury Department and the IRS recognized that an F reorganization may be a step, or a series of steps, before, within, or after other transactions that effect more than a Mere Change, even if the Resulting Corporation has only a transitory existence following the Mere Change. In some cases an F reorganization sets the stage for later transactions by alleviating non-tax impediments to a transfer of assets. In other cases, prior transactions may tailor the assets and shareholders of the Transferor Corporation before the commencement of the F reorganization. Although an F reorganization may facilitate another transaction that is part of the same plan, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that step transaction principles generally should not recharacterize F reorganizations because F reorganizations involve only one corporation and do not resemble sales of assets. From a federal income tax perspective, F reorganizations are generally neutral, involving no change in ownership or assets, no end to the taxable year, and inheritance of the tax attributes described in section 381(c) without a limitation on the carryback of losses.
The Final Regulations adopt the Related Events Rule of the 2004 Proposed Regulations, which provided that related events preceding or following the Potential F Reorganization that constitutes a Mere Change generally would not cause that Potential F Reorganization to fail to qualify as an F reorganization. Notwithstanding the Related Events Rule, in the cross-border context, related events preceding or following an F reorganization may be relevant to the tax consequences under certain international provisions that apply to F reorganizations. For example, such events may be relevant for purposes of applying certain rules under section 7874 and for purposes of determining whether stock of the Resulting Corporation should be treated as stock of a controlled foreign corporation for purposes of section 367(b).
The Final Regulations also adopt the provision of the 2004 Proposed Regulations that the qualification of a Potential F Reorganization as an F reorganization would not alter the treatment of other related transactions. For example, if an F reorganization is part of a plan that includes a subsequent merger involving the Resulting Corporation, the qualification of a Potential F Reorganization as an F reorganization will not alter the tax consequences of the subsequent merger.
A comment to the Proposed Regulations stated that, in some cases, an asset transfer that would constitute a step in an F reorganization is also a necessary step for characterizing a larger transaction as a nonrecognition transaction that would not constitute an F reorganization. For example, assume that corporation P acquires all of the stock of unrelated corporation T in exchange for consideration consisting of $50 cash and P voting stock with $50 value (without making an election under section 338), and, immediately thereafter and as part of the same plan, T is merged into corporation S, a newly-formed corporation wholly owned by P. Viewed in isolation, the merger of T into S appears to constitute a Mere Change. Provided the requirements for Asset Reorganization treatment are otherwise satisfied, however, the step transaction doctrine is applied to integrate the steps and treat the transaction as a statutory merger of T into S in which S acquires T's assets in exchange for $50 cash, $50 of P voting stock and assumption of T's liabilities, and T distributes the cash and P stock to its shareholders. This merger qualifies as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(A) by reason of section 368(a)(2)(D), and P's momentary ownership of T stock is disregarded.
To clarify this and similar situations, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that, if the Potential F Reorganization or a step thereof involving a transfer of property from the Transferor Corporation to the Resulting Corporation is also a reorganization or part of a reorganization in which a corporation in control (within the meaning of section 368(c)) of the Resulting Corporation is a party to the reorganization (within the meaning of section 368(b)), the Potential F Reorganization is not a Mere Change and does not qualify as an F reorganization. This rule will apply to transactions qualifying as reorganizations (i) under section 368(a)(1)(C) by reason of the parenthetical language therein, (ii) under section 368(a)(1)(A) by reason of section 368(a)(2)(D), and (iii) under sections 368(a)(1)(A) or (C) by reason of section 368(a)(2)(C).
The IRS has long taken the position that, if a Transferor Corporation's transfer of property qualifies as a step in both an F reorganization and another type of reorganization in which the Resulting Corporation is the acquiring corporation, the transaction qualifies for the benefits accorded to an F reorganization.
To avoid confusion in the application of the reorganization provisions, the Treasury Department and the IRS have decided that, except as provided earlier in this section 5. of the Explanation of
As described in section 3.D. of the Background, the 2004 Proposed Regulations provided that, if a shareholder received money or other property (including in exchange for its shares) from the Transferor Corporation or the Resulting Corporation in a transaction that constituted an F reorganization, the money or other property would be treated as distributed by the Transferor Corporation immediately before the transaction, not as additional consideration under section 356(a). The preamble to the 2004 Proposed Regulations indicated that this treatment would also be appropriate for distributions of money or other property in E reorganizations.
Although the Treasury Department and the IRS considered whether a distribution occurring during a Potential F Reorganization should prevent it from qualifying as an F reorganization, the Treasury Department and the IRS determined to allow flexibility for such distributions. Nevertheless, unlike other types of reorganizations, which generally involve substantial changes in economic position, F reorganizations are mere changes in form. Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that any concurrent distribution should be treated as a transaction separate from the F reorganization.
An F reorganization is a Mere Change involving only one continuing corporation and is neither an acquisitive transaction nor a divisive transaction. From a federal income tax perspective, F reorganizations generally are neutral, involving no change in ownership or assets, no end to the taxable year, and inheritance of the tax attributes described in section 381(c). A distribution that occurs at the same time as a Mere Change is, in substance, a distribution from one continuing corporation and is functionally separate from the Mere Change. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that a distribution from one continuing corporation should not be treated the same as an exchange of money or other property for stock of a target corporation in an acquisitive reorganization. Instead, the distribution should be treated as a separate transaction occurring at the same time. Although the 2004 Proposed Regulations would have treated a distribution as occurring immediately before the transaction qualifying as an F reorganization, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe it is sufficient to treat the distribution as a separate transaction that occurs at the same time as the F reorganization.
As explained in this preamble, the first requirement of the Final Regulations is that all of the stock of the Resulting Corporation be distributed in exchange for stock of the Transferor Corporation. Certain entities may be treated as corporations for federal tax purposes even though they do not have owners that could be treated as shareholders for federal tax purposes to whom the profits of the corporation would inure (for example, some charitable organizations described in section 501(c)(3)). Nevertheless, these entities may be able to engage in corporate reorganizations. Thus, no inference should be drawn from the use of the terms “stock” or “shareholders” in these Final Regulations with respect to the ability of such entities to engage in reorganizations under section 368(a)(1)(F).
The Treasury Department and the IRS are studying how to assign (or reassign) employer identification numbers (EINs) to taxpayers following an F reorganization, including in cases in which the Transferor Corporation remains in existence as a disregarded entity, and comments on this issue are welcome.
These final regulations are effective for transactions occurring on or after September 21, 2015.
The following publications are obsolete as of September 21, 2015.
Rev. Rul. 57-276, 1957-1 CB 126; Rev. Rul. 58-422, 1958-2 CB 145; Rev. Rul. 66-284, 1966-2 CB 115; Rev. Rul. 79-250, 1979-2 CB 156; Rev. Rul. 79-289, 1979-2 CB 145; and Rev. Rul. 96-29, 1996-1 CB 50; are obsoleted. Rev. Rul. 87-27, 1987-1 CB 134; and Rev. Rul. 88-25, 1988-1 CB 116; are obsoleted in part (with respect to the determination of whether a transaction qualifies as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F)).
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the proposed regulations preceding these final regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small businesses, and no comments were received.
The principal author of these final regulations is Douglas C. Bates of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
IRS revenue rulings, revenue procedures, and notices cited in this Treasury decision are made available by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(4) through (5) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(e)
(f)
(i) A transfer of assets by the transferor corporation to the acquiring corporation under section 361(a) in exchange for stock (or stock and securities) of the acquiring corporation and the assumption by the acquiring corporation of the transferor corporation's liabilities;
(ii) A distribution of the stock (or stock and securities) of the acquiring corporation by the transferor corporation to the shareholders (or shareholders and security holders) of the transferor corporation; and
(iii) An exchange by the transferor corporation's shareholders (or shareholders and security holders) of their stock (or stock and securities) of the transferor corporation for stock (or stock and securities) of the acquiring corporation under section 354(a).
(2)
(g)(1) through (3) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(4) * * * The rules in paragraph (e) of this section apply to transactions occurring on or after March 31, 1987. The rules in paragraph (f) of this section apply to transactions occurring on or after January 1, 1985.
(e) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(f) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(m)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(A) If the potential F reorganization or a step thereof qualifies as a reorganization or part of a reorganization under another provision of section 368(a)(1), and if a corporation in control (within the meaning of section 368(c)) of the resulting corporation is a party to such other reorganization (within the meaning of section 368(b)), the potential F reorganization will not qualify as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F).
(B) Except as provided in paragraph (m)(3)(iv)(A) of this section, if, but for this paragraph (m)(3)(iv)(B), the potential F reorganization would qualify as a reorganization under both section 368(a)(1)(F) and one or more of sections 368(a)(1)(A), 368(a)(1)(C), or 368(a)(1)(D), then for all federal income tax purposes the potential F reorganization will qualify as a reorganization only under section 368(a)(1)(F).
(4)
C owns all of the stock of X, a State A corporation. The net value of X's assets and liabilities is $1,000,000. Y, a State B corporation, seeks to acquire the assets of X for cash. To effect the acquisition, Y and X enter into an agreement under which Y will contribute $1,000,000 to Z, a newly formed corporation of which Y is the sole shareholder, in exchange for Z stock and X will merge into Z. In the merger, C surrenders all of the X stock and receives the $1,000,000 Y contributed to Z. C receives no Z stock in the transaction. After the merger, Y holds all of the Z stock, and Z holds all of the assets and liabilities previously held by X. Z stock is not distributed to the shareholders of X in exchange for their stock in X as required by paragraph (m)(1)(i) of this section, and the transaction results in a change in the ownership of X that does not result from an exchange or distribution described in paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this section. Therefore, the merger of X into Z is not a mere change of X and does not qualify as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F).
A owns 75%, and B owns 25%, of the stock of X, a State A corporation. The management of X determines that it would be in the best interest of X to reorganize under the laws of State B. Accordingly, X forms Y, a State B corporation, and X and Y enter into an agreement under which X will merge into Y. A does not wish to own stock in Y. In the
P owns all of the stock of S, a Country A corporation. The management of P determines that it would be in the best interest of S to change its place of incorporation to Country B. Under Country B law, a corporation must have at least two shareholders to enjoy limited liability. P is advised by its Country B advisors that the new corporation should issue 1% of its stock to a shareholder that is not P's nominee to assure satisfaction of the two-shareholder requirement. As part of an integrated plan, C, an officer of S, organizes Y, a Country B corporation with 1,000 shares of common stock authorized, and contributes cash to Y in exchange for ten of the common shares. S then merges into Y under the laws of Country A and Country B. Pursuant to the plan of merger, P surrenders its shares of S stock and receives 990 shares of Y common stock. The ten shares of Y stock issued to C not in respect of the S stock are de minimis and are used to facilitate the organization of Y within the meaning of paragraph (m)(1)(i) of this section. Therefore, the issuance of this stock to a new shareholder does not prevent the merger of S into Y from qualifying as a mere change of S. Accordingly, the merger is a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F). Without regard to the merger's qualification under section 368(a)(1)(F), the merger would also qualify as a reorganization under both section 368(a)(1)(A) and section 368(a)(1)(D). Under paragraph (m)(3)(iv)(B) of this section, if a potential F reorganization qualifies as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F), and would also qualify under one or more of sections 368(a)(1)(A) or 368(a)(1)(D), the potential F reorganization qualifies only as a reorganization under 368(a)(1)(F), and neither section 368(a)(1)(A) nor section 368(a)(1)(D) will apply.
A owns all of the stock of P, and P owns all of the stock of S, which is engaged in a manufacturing business. P has owned the stock of S for many years. P owns no assets other than the stock of S. A decides to eliminate the holding company structure by merging P into S. Because it operates a manufacturing business, the potential resulting corporation, S, holds property and has tax attributes immediately before the potential F reorganization. Therefore, under paragraph (m)(1)(iii) of this section, the merger of P into S is not a mere change of P and does not qualify as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F). The same result would occur under paragraph (m)(1)(iii) of this section if, instead of P merging into S, S merged into P, because P, the potential resulting corporation, holds property (the stock of S) and has tax attributes immediately before the potential F reorganization.
P owns all of the stock of S1, a State A corporation. The management of P determines that it would be in the best interest of S1 to change its place of incorporation to State B. Accordingly, under an integrated plan, P forms S2, a new State B corporation; P contributes the S1 stock to S2; and S1 merges into S2 under the laws of State A and State B. Under paragraph (m)(3)(i) of this section, a series of transactions that together result in a mere change of one corporation may qualify as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F). The contribution of S1 stock to S2 and the merger of S1 into S2 together constitute a mere change of S1. Therefore, the potential F reorganization qualifies as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F). Without regard to its qualification under section 368(a)(1)(F), the potential F reorganization would also qualify as a reorganization under both section 368(a)(1)(A) and section 368(a)(1)(D). Under paragraph (m)(3)(iv)(B) of this section, if a potential F reorganization qualifies as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F) and would also qualify under one or more of sections 368(a)(1)(A) or 368(a)(1)(D), it qualifies only as a reorganization under 368(a)(1)(F), and neither section 368(a)(1)(A) nor section 368(a)(1)(D) will apply. The result would be the same with respect to qualification under section 368(a)(1)(F) if, instead of merging into S2, S1 completely liquidates.
P owns all of the stock of S1, a State A corporation. The management of P determines that it would be in the best interest of S1 to change its place of incorporation to State B. Accordingly, P forms S2, a new State B corporation. S1 then merges into S2 under the laws of State A and State B. Immediately thereafter, and as part of the same plan, P sells all of its stock in S2 to an unrelated party. Without regard to P's sale of S2 stock, the merger of S1 into S2 is a potential F reorganization that qualifies as a mere change of S1 within the meaning of paragraph (m)(1) of this section. Under paragraph (m)(3)(ii) of this section, related events that occur before or after a potential F reorganization that qualifies as a mere change generally do not cause that potential F reorganization to fail to qualify as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F). Therefore, P's sale of the S2 stock is disregarded in determining whether the merger of S1 into S2 is a mere change of S1. Accordingly, the merger of S1 into S2 qualifies as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F). The result would be the same if, instead of the S2 stock being sold by P, S2 merges into a previously unrelated corporation and terminates its separate existence.
A owns all of the stock of T. P owns all of the stock of S. Each of T and S is a State A corporation engaged in a manufacturing business. The following transactions occur pursuant to a single plan. First, T merges into S with A receiving solely stock in P. Second, P changes its state of incorporation to State B by merging into newly incorporated New P under the laws of State A and State B. Third, New P redeems all the New P stock issued to A in respect of A's P stock (initially issued to A in respect of A's T stock) for cash. Without regard to the other steps, the merger of P into New P is a potential F reorganization that qualifies as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F). Under paragraph (m)(3)(ii) of this section, related events that occur before or after a potential F reorganization that qualifies as a mere change generally do not prevent that potential F reorganization from qualifying as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F). Therefore, the merger of P into New P qualifies as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F). Under paragraph (m)(3)(ii) of this section, the qualification of the merger of P into New P as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F) does not alter the tax treatment of the merger of T into S. Because the P shares received by A in respect of the T shares (exchanged for New P shares in the mere change of P into New P) are redeemed for cash pursuant to the plan, the merger of T into S does not satisfy the continuity of interest requirement of § 1.368-1(e) and therefore does not qualify as a reorganization under section 368(a).
P owns all of the stock of S, a State A corporation. The management of P determines that it would be in the best interest of S to change its form from a State A corporation to a State A limited partnership but to continue to be treated as a corporation for federal tax purposes. Accordingly, P contributes 1% of the S stock to newly formed LLC, a limited liability company, in exchange for all of the membership interests in LLC. P is the sole member of LLC. Under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter, LLC is disregarded as an entity separate from its owner, P. Then, under a State A statute, S converts to a State A limited partnership. In the conversion, P's interest as a 99% shareholder of S is converted into a 99% limited partner interest, and LLC's interest as a 1% shareholder of S is converted into a 1% general partner interest. S also elects, under § 301.7701-3(c) of this chapter, to be classified as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, effective on the same day as the conversion. Under paragraph (m)(3)(i) of this section, the conversion of S from a State A corporation to a State A limited partnership, together with the election to treat S as a corporation for federal tax purposes, results in a mere change of S and qualifies as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F).
P owns 80%, and A owns 20%, of the stock of S. A and the management of P determine that it would be in the best interest of S to completely liquidate while A continues to operate part of the business of S in corporate form. Accordingly, S distributes 80% of its assets to P and 20% of its assets to A; S dissolves; and A contributes the assets it receives from S to newly incorporated New S in exchange
P owns all of the stock of S1. The management of P determines that it would be in the best interest of S1 to merge S1 into P. Accordingly, pursuant to a state merger statute, S1 merges into P. Immediately afterward and as part of the same plan, P contributes 50% of the former assets of S1 to newly incorporated S2 in exchange for all of the stock of S2. The transaction does not qualify as a complete liquidation of S1 under section 332 (because of the reincorporation of some of S1's assets) but does qualify as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(A) by reason of section 368(a)(2)(C) and paragraph (k) of this section. Under paragraph (m)(1)(v) of this section, the potential F reorganization in which some of the former assets of S1 are transferred (in form) first to P, and then to S2, is not a mere change of S1, because section 381(a) applies to P's acquisition of property held by S1 immediately before the potential F reorganization. Furthermore, under paragraph (m)(3)(iv)(A) of this section, P, the corporation in control of S2 within the meaning of section 368(c), is a party to the reorganization within the meaning of section 368(b). Thus, the indirect transfer of property from S1 to S2 does not qualify under section 368(a)(1)(F).
P owns all of the stock of S1. S1's only asset is all of the equity interest in LLC2, a domestic limited liability company. Under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter, LLC2 is disregarded as an entity separate from its owner, S1. Pursuant to an integrated plan to undergo a reorganization under 368(a)(1)(F), S1 and LLC2 undergo the following two state law conversions. First, under state law LLC2 converts into S2, a corporation. Second, under state law S1 converts into LLC1, a domestic limited liability company. Under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter, LLC1 is disregarded as an entity separate from its owner, P. As a result of the two conversions, S1 is deemed to transfer its assets to S2 in exchange for all of the stock in S2 and then distribute the S2 stock to P in complete liquidation of S1. The two conversions, viewed as a potential F reorganization, constitute a mere change of S1, and that potential F reorganization qualifies as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F). The result would be the same if, instead of converting into S2 pursuant to state law, LLC2 elected under § 301.7701-3(c) to change its classification for federal tax purposes and be treated as an association taxable as a corporation, provided the effective date of the election (and its resulting deemed transactions) occurs before the conversion of S1.
The facts are the same facts as in
X owns all of the stock of T. P acquires all of the stock of T in exchange for consideration consisting of $50 cash and P voting stock with $50 value. No election is made under section 338. Immediately thereafter and as part of the same plan, P forms S as a wholly-owned subsidiary, and T is merged into S. Viewed in isolation as a potential F reorganization, the merger of T into S appears to constitute a mere change of T. However, the acquisition of the T stock by P and the merger of T into S, viewed together, qualify as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(A) by reason of section 368(a)(2)(D). The step transaction doctrine is applied treat the transaction as a statutory merger of T into S in exchange for $50 cash and $50 of P's voting stock (and S's assumption of T's liabilities), P's momentary ownership of T stock is disregarded. Under paragraph (m)(3)(iv)(A) of this section, P, the corporation in control of S, is a party to the reorganization within the meaning of section 368(b). Thus, the transfer of property from T to S does not qualify under section 368(a)(1)(F).
P owns all the stock of S1 and S2. The management of P determines it would be in the best interest of S1 and S2 to operate as a single corporation. P forms S3 and, under applicable corporate law, S1 and S2 simultaneously merge into S3. Immediately after the merger, P owns all the stock of S3. Each of the mergers can be tested as a potential F reorganization. However, immediately after the simultaneous mergers, the resulting corporation, S3, holds property acquired from a corporation other than the transferor corporation, and section 381(a) would apply to the acquisition of such property. Therefore, under paragraph (m)(1)(vi) of this section, neither potential F reorganization is a mere change, and neither merger into S3 qualifies as a reorganization under section 386(a)(1)(F). The result would be different if the mergers were not simultaneous. If S1 completed its merger into S3 before S2 began its merger into S3, the merger of S1 into S3 would qualify as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(F), but the merger of S2 into S3 would not so qualify (although it would qualify as a reorganization under sections 368(a)(1)(A) and 368(a)(1)(D)).
(5)
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the Cuban Assets Control Regulations to further implement elements of the policy announced by the President on December 17, 2014 to engage and empower the Cuban people. Among other things, these amendments further facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes (including authorizing by general license the provision of carrier services by vessel), expand the telecommunications and Internet-based services general licenses, authorize certain persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to establish a physical presence in Cuba, allow certain additional persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to open and maintain bank
Effective: September 21, 2015.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Policy, tel.: 202-622-2746, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
The Department of the Treasury issued the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515 (the “Regulations”), on July 8, 1963, under the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5
Most recently, on January 16, 2015, OFAC amended the Regulations, in a coordinated action with the Department of Commerce, to implement certain policy measures announced by the President on December 17, 2014 to further engage and empower the Cuban people (the “January 2015 amendments”). OFAC's January 2015 amendments facilitated travel to Cuba for authorized purposes, facilitated the provision by travel agents and airlines of authorized travel and carrier services and the forwarding by certain entities of authorized remittances, raised the limit on certain categories of remittances to Cuba, allowed U.S. financial institutions to open correspondent accounts at Cuban financial institutions to facilitate the processing of authorized transactions, authorized certain transactions with Cuban nationals located outside of Cuba, and allowed a number of other activities related to, among other areas, telecommunications, financial services, trade, and shipping.
Today, OFAC and the Department of Commerce are taking additional coordinated actions in support of the President's Cuba policy. OFAC is amending the Regulations to further implement certain policy measures announced by the President on December 17, 2014 to engage and empower the Cuban people. Among other things, these amendments further facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes (including authorizing by general license the provision of carrier services by vessel), expand the telecommunications and Internet-based services general licenses, authorize certain persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to establish a physical presence in Cuba to facilitate authorized transactions, allow certain additional persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to open and maintain bank accounts in Cuba to use for authorized purposes, allow certain additional financial transactions (including removing the limit on donative remittances to Cuba and unblocking certain previously blocked remittances and funds transfers), authorize all persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to provide goods and services to Cuban national individuals located outside of Cuba, and allow a number of other activities related to, among other areas, legal services, imports of gifts sent to the United States, and educational activities. These amendments also implement certain technical and conforming changes.
Because the amendments of the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, Executive Order 12866 and the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.
The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”) and section 515.572 of this part. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information will be covered by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 1505-0164, 1505-0167, and 1505-0168. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banking, Blocking of assets, Carrier services, Cuba, Financial transactions, Remittances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Travel restrictions.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR part 515 as set forth below:
22 U.S.C. 2370(a), 6001-6010, 7201-7211; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. App 1-44; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28
For the waiver of the prohibitions contained in this section for vessels engaged in certain trade and travel with Cuba, see § 515.550.
With respect to transactions incident to the administration of the blocked estate of a decedent, including the appointment and qualification of personal representatives, the collection and liquidation of assets, the payment of claims, and distribution to beneficiaries, attention is directed to § 515.523, which authorizes all transactions incident to the administration and distribution of the assets of blocked estates of decedents.
(b) Transactions incident to the travel to the United States of Cuban nationals who are traveling other than in a non-immigrant status or pursuant to other non-immigrant travel authorization issued by the U.S. government are not authorized under the provisions of § 515.571.
(a) Any transaction ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction and necessary to give effect thereto is also authorized, except:
(1) A transaction by or with a prohibited official of the Government of Cuba, as defined in § 515.337, or a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party, as defined in § 515.338, where the terms of the applicable general or specific license expressly exclude transactions with such persons;
(2) A transaction involving a debit to a blocked account or a transfer of blocked property that is not explicitly authorized within the terms of the license;
(3) A transaction prohibited by § 515.208; or
(4) In the case of export or reexport-related transactions authorized by § 515.533(a), payment or financing that is not explicitly authorized by that section.
See § 515.533(a)(2) for payment and financing terms for exportations or reexportations authorized pursuant to § 515.533.
(b)
(2) A general license authorizing a person to import certain goods from independent Cuban entrepreneurs also authorizes funds transfers or payments that are ordinarily incident to the importation, including payments made using online payment platforms.
(b) No regulation, ruling, instruction, or license authorizes a transaction prohibited under this part unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license is issued by the Treasury Department and specifically refers to this part.
(a) * * *
(2) Any individual national of Cuba who has taken up permanent residence outside of Cuba, provided that the required documentation specified in paragraph (c) of this section is obtained and the individual is not a prohibited official of the Government of Cuba, as defined in § 515.337, or a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party, as defined in § 515.338;
(3) Any entity that otherwise would be a national of Cuba solely because of the interest therein of one or more persons licensed in this paragraph (a) as an unblocked national;
(4) Any entity, office, or other sub-unit authorized pursuant to §§ 515.542, 515.573, or 515.578; and
(5) Any individual authorized to establish domicile in Cuba pursuant to § 515.573(a)(4).
(a) The provision of the following legal services to or on behalf of Cuba or a Cuban national is authorized, provided that receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses must be authorized by or pursuant to paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, or otherwise authorized pursuant to this part:
(1) Provision of legal advice and counseling on the requirements of and compliance with the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, provided that such advice and counseling are not provided to facilitate transactions in violation of this part;
(2) Representation of persons named as defendants in or otherwise made parties to legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency;
(3) Initiation and conduct of legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency;
(4) Representation of persons before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency with respect to the imposition, administration, or enforcement of U.S. sanctions against such persons; and
(5) Provision of legal services in any other context in which prevailing U.S. law requires access to legal counsel at public expense.
(b) The provision of any other legal services to Cuba or a Cuban national, not otherwise authorized in this part, requires the issuance of a specific license.
(c) Entry into a settlement agreement or the enforcement of any lien, judgment, arbitral award, decree, or other order through execution, garnishment, or other judicial process purporting to transfer or otherwise alter or affect property in which Cuba or a Cuban national has had an interest at any time on or since 12:01 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, July 8, 1963, is
(d)
(2)
(e)
(1) The funds received by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction as payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses for the provision of legal services authorized pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section do not originate from:
(i) A source within the United States;
(ii) Any source, wherever located, within the possession or control of a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction; or
(iii) Any person, other than the person on whose behalf the legal services authorized pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section are to be provided, whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any part of this chapter other than part 515.
(2)
(A) The individual or entity from whom the funds originated and the amount of funds received; and
(B) If applicable:
(
(
(
(ii) The reports, which must reference this section, are to be mailed to: Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Attn: Licensing Division, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Annex, Washington, DC 20220.
Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction who receive payments in connection with legal services authorized pursuant to § 515.512(a) do not need to obtain specific authorization to contract for related services that are ordinarily incident to the provision of those legal services, such as those provided by private investigators or expert witnesses, or to pay for such services. This does not authorize the hiring of Cuban nationals. Additionally, persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction do not need to obtain specific authorization to provide related services that are ordinarily incident to the provision of legal services authorized pursuant to § 515.512(a).
See §§ 515.527 and 515.528 for general licenses authorizing fees due to attorneys in connection with certain intellectual property-related transactions. See § 515.588 for a general license authorizing the receipt of, and payment for, certain legal services from Cuba or a Cuban national.
All transactions incident to the administration and distribution of the assets of a blocked estate of a decedent are authorized. Such transactions include the appointment and qualification of a personal representative in the United States or Cuba, collection and preservation of assets by a personal representative and associated fees, payment of funeral expenses and expenses of the last illness, transfer of title, and distribution of assets pursuant to a valid testamentary disposition or intestate succession. All property distributed pursuant to this section is unblocked, provided that neither Cuba nor a Cuban national (other than the decedent or a person unblocked pursuant to § 515.505) has an interest in the property.
See § 515.570(f)(1) for a general license authorizing funds deposited in a blocked bank account in a banking institution, as defined in § 515.314, as a result of certain administration of decedents' estates to be remitted to a national of Cuba.
(a) Any bank or trust company incorporated under the laws of the United States, or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States, or any private bank subject to supervision and examination under the banking laws of any State of the United States, acting as trustee of a trust created by gift, donation, or bequest and administered in the United States, in which one or more persons who are designated nationals have an interest, beneficial or otherwise, or are co-trustees, is hereby authorized to engage in the following transactions:
(1) Payments of distributive shares of principal or income to all persons legally entitled thereto.
(2) Other transactions arising in the administration of such trust which might be engaged in if no Cuban national were a beneficiary or co-trustee of such trust.
(b) This section does not authorize a trustee to engage in any other transaction at the request, or upon the instructions, of any beneficiary or co-trustee of such trust or other person who is a Cuban national.
See § 515.523 for a general license authorizing transactions incident to the administration of decedents' estates. See § 515.570(f)(1) for a general license authorizing funds deposited in a blocked bank account in a banking institution as a result of certain administration of decedents' estates to be remitted to a national of Cuba.
Any transfer of any dower, curtesy, community property, or other interest of any nature whatsoever, provided that such transfer arises solely as a consequence of the existence or change of marital status, is authorized.
(d)
(a) All transactions, including payments, incident to the receipt or transmission of mail and parcels between the United States and Cuba are authorized, provided that the importation or exportation of such mail and parcels is exempt from or authorized pursuant to this part.
(e) Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are authorized to enter into licensing agreements related to services authorized by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, and to market such services.
(f) Except for transactions prohibited by § 515.208, persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are authorized to engage in all transactions necessary to establish and maintain a business presence in Cuba, including through subsidiaries, branches, offices, joint ventures, franchises, and agency or other business relationships with any Cuban national, and to enter into all necessary agreements or arrangements with such entity or individual, for the purpose of engaging in the activities authorized in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
For an authorization of travel-related transactions that are directly incident to the conduct of market research, commercial marketing, sales negotiation, accompanied delivery, installation, or servicing in Cuba of items consistent with the export or reexport policy of the Department of Commerce, see § 515.533(d). For an authorization of travel-related transactions that are directly incident to participation in professional meetings, including where such meetings relate to telecommunications services or other activities authorized by paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section, see § 515.564(a).
For a general license authorizing a physical presence in Cuba for certain persons, see § 515.573. For an authorization of certain internet-related services, see § 515.578.
The importation into the United States of merchandise from Cuba or Cuban-origin merchandise from a third country intended as gifts is authorized, provided that the value of the merchandise is not more than $100; the merchandise is of a type and in quantities normally given as gifts between individuals; the merchandise is sent and not carried by a traveler (including as accompanied or unaccompanied baggage); and the merchandise is not alcohol or tobacco products.
See § 515.533 for a general license authorizing transactions ordinarily incident to exports of items from the United States that are licensed or otherwise authorized by the Department of Commerce, which may include gifts sent to Cuba.
(a) The receipt of, and payment of charges for, services rendered by Cuba or a Cuban national in connection with overflights of Cuba or emergency landings in Cuba by aircraft registered in the United States or owned or controlled by, or chartered to, persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are authorized.
(b) Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are authorized to engage in all transactions necessary to provide air ambulance and related medical services, including medical evacuation from Cuba, for individual travelers in Cuba, regardless of nationality or the purpose of the individual's travel to Cuba.
Persons providing air ambulance services authorized by paragraph (b) are authorized to carry persons who are close relatives, as defined in § 515.539, of the subject of the evacuation.
(a) Engaging or has engaged in trade with Cuba authorized pursuant to this part;
The authorization in this paragraph includes, for example, trade with Cuba authorized pursuant to §§ 515.533, 515.559, or 515.582, or by specific license.
(c) Engaging or has engaged in the exportation or re-exportation to Cuba from a third country of agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices that would be designated as EAR99 under the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774), if they were located in the United States;
(d) A foreign vessel that has entered a port or place in Cuba while carrying students, faculty, and staff that are authorized to travel to Cuba pursuant to § 515.565(a); or
(e) Carrying or has carried persons between the United States and Cuba or within Cuba pursuant to the authorization in § 515.572(a)(2) or, in the case of a vessel used solely for personal travel (and not transporting passengers), pursuant to a license or other authorization issued by the Department of Commerce for the exportation or reexportation of the vessel to Cuba.
(d)
See § 515.585 for provisions related to certain transactions by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction with certain Cuban nationals in third countries.
(c) * * *
(4)
(6)(i)
(ii)
Account(s) authorized by this general license may only be accessed while the account holder is located in Cuba for travel authorized pursuant to this part. The account(s) may not be accessed or utilized by the account holder unless the account holder is located in Cuba and is engaging in authorized transactions. The account(s) may be maintained but not accessed while the account holder is located outside of Cuba other than for the purpose of funding or closing the bank account as authorized in paragraph (c)(6).
(d) * * *
(2) Funds received as remittances pursuant to § 515.570 by the Cuban national during his or her stay in the United States; and
(a)
Each person relying on the general authorization in this paragraph must retain specific records related to the authorized travel transactions. See §§ 501.601 and 501.602 of this chapter for applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(a)
See § 515.571(a) for authorizations related to certain banking transactions by Cuban nationals present in the United States in a non-immigrant status or pursuant to other non-immigrant travel authorization issued by the U.S. government.
(7) Sponsorship or co-sponsorship of non commercial academic seminars, conferences, symposia, and workshops related to Cuba or global issues involving Cuba and attendance at such events by faculty, staff, and students of a participating U.S. academic institution;
(8) Establishment of academic exchanges and joint non-commercial academic research projects with universities or academic institutions in Cuba;
(9) Provision of standardized testing services, including professional certificate examinations, university entrance examinations, and language examinations, and related preparatory services for such exams, to Cuban nationals, wherever located;
(10) Provision of internet-based courses, including distance learning and Massive Open Online Courses, to Cuban nationals, wherever located, provided that the course content is at the undergraduate level or below; or
(11) The organization of, and preparation for, activities described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (10) of this section by employees or contractors of the sponsoring organization that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction;
(12) Facilitation by an organization that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or a member of the staff of such an organization, of licensed educational activities in Cuba on behalf of U.S. academic institutions or secondary schools, provided that:
(i) The organization is directly affiliated with one or more U.S. academic institutions or secondary schools; and
(ii) The organization facilitates educational activities that meet the requirements of one or more of the general licenses set forth in § 515.565(a)(1), (2), (3), and (6).
See § 515.560(c)(6) for an authorization for individuals to open and maintain accounts at Cuban financial institutions; see § 515.573 for an authorization for entities conducting educational activities authorized by § 515.565(a) to establish a physical presence in Cuba, including an authorization to open
The authorization in this paragraph extends to adjunct faculty and part-time staff of U.S. academic institutions. A student enrolled in a U.S. academic institution is authorized pursuant to § 515.565(a)(1) to participate in the academic activities in Cuba described above through any sponsoring U.S. academic institution.
The export or reexport to Cuba of goods (including software) or technology subject to the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) may require separate authorization from the Department of Commerce.
See § 515.573 for an authorization permitting religious organizations engaging in activities authorized pursuant to this section to establish a physical presence in Cuba, including an authorization to open and maintain accounts at Cuban financial institutions.
(b)
(1) The remittances are not made from a blocked source;
(2) The recipient is not a prohibited official of the Government of Cuba, as defined in § 515.337, or a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party, as defined in § 515.338;
(3) The remittances are not made for emigration-related purposes. Remittances for emigration-related purposes are addressed by paragraph (e) of this section; and
(4) The remitter, if an individual, is 18 years of age or older.
(f) * * *
(1) Funds deposited in a blocked account in a banking institution, as defined in § 515.314, in the United States held in the name of, or in which the beneficial interest is held by, a national of Cuba as a result of a valid testamentary disposition, intestate succession or payment from a life insurance policy or annuity contract triggered by the death of the policy or contract holder may be remitted to that national of Cuba, provided that the remittances are not made for emigration-related purposes. Remittances for emigration-related purposes are addressed by paragraph (e) of this section .
(h)
(1) Where available, a copy of the original blocking report filed with OFAC pursuant to § 501.603(b)(1) of this chapter.
(2) The date the unblocked remittance was released;
(3) The amount of funds unblocked;
(4) The name of the party to whom the remittance was released; and
(5) A reference to this section as the legal authority under which the remittance was unblocked and returned.
For the rules relating to the carrying of remittances to Cuba, see § 515.560(c)(4). See § 515.572 for an authorization related to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of certain remittances to or from Cuba.
This paragraph authorizes depository institutions, as defined in § 515.333, to open and maintain accounts solely in the name of a Cuban national who is present in the United States in a non-immigrant status or pursuant to other non-immigrant travel authorization for use while the Cuban national is located in the United States in such status, and to close such accounts prior to departure. See § 515.571(b) for an authorization for depository institutions to maintain accounts opened pursuant to this paragraph while the Cuban national is located outside the United States.
(b) Maintenance of accounts opened pursuant to paragraph (a)(5) of this section while the Cuban-national account holder is located outside the United States is authorized, provided that the Cuban-national account holder may only access the account pursuant to paragraph (a)(5) of this section when the Cuban-national account holder is lawfully present in the United States in a non-immigrant status or pursuant to other non-immigrant travel authorization issued by the U.S. government.
(c) Payments and transfers of credit in the United States from blocked accounts in domestic banking institutions held in the name of a Cuban national who is present in the United States in a non-immigrant status or pursuant to other non-immigrant travel authorization issued by the U.S. government to or upon the order of such Cuban national are authorized, provided that such payments and transfers of credit are made only for the living, traveling, and similar personal expenses in the United States of such Cuban national or his or her family, or other transactions ordinarily incident to the Cuban national's presence in the United States in a non-immigrant status or pursuant to other non-immigrant travel authorization issued by the U.S. government.
(a) * * *
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
The following persons may be transported between the United States and Cuba by a person authorized to provide carrier services:
(1) Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction who are traveling to or from Cuba pursuant to a general license under one of the 12 categories of travel listed in § 515.560 or under a specific license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control may be transported between the United States and Cuba;
(2) Cuban nationals applying for admission to the United States, as well as third-country nationals, with a valid visa or other travel authorization issued by the U.S. government may be transported to the United States from Cuba;
(3) Cuban nationals present in the United States in a non-immigrant status or pursuant to other non-immigrant travel authorization issued by the U.S. government may be transported from the United States to Cuba;
(4) Cuban nationals who have taken up residence in the United States and are licensed as unblocked nationals pursuant to § 515.505(a)(1) are persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction and may be transported between the United States and Cuba if they meet the criteria set out in (1) above; and
(5) An individual, including a foreign national, who is traveling on official business of the U.S. government, a foreign government, or an intergovernmental organization of which the United States is a member or in which the United States holds observer status—including an employee, contractor, or grantee of such government or intergovernmental organization and any individual traveling on a diplomatic passport, as well as any close relative, as defined in § 515.339, accompanying the traveler—may be transported between the United States and Cuba.
(a) All transactions necessary to establish and maintain a physical presence in Cuba by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to engage in transactions authorized pursuant to or exempt from the prohibitions of this part that are identified in paragraph (b) of this section are authorized, including the following:
(1) Leasing physical premises, including office, warehouse, classroom, or retail outlet space, and securing related goods and services, including for use in and to pay fees related to the operation of the physical premises;
(2) Marketing related to the physical presence;
(3) Employment of Cuban nationals in Cuba; and
(4) Employment of individuals who are persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Individuals who are employed pursuant to § 515.573(a)(4) are authorized to engage in all transactions necessary to establish domicile in Cuba, including accessing U.S. assets, for the duration of their employment.
(5)(i)
(ii)
Physical presence includes through a local representative, including an employee or contractor.
(b) The following persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction may engage in the transactions authorized pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, provided that such transactions may only be engaged in to support transactions authorized by or exempt from the prohibitions of this part:
(1) News bureaus whose primary purpose is the gathering and dissemination of news to the general public authorized by paragraph (c) of this section;
(2) Exporters of goods authorized for export or reexport to Cuba by § 515.533 or § 515.559 or that are otherwise exempt;
(3) Entities providing mail or parcel transmission services authorized by § 515.542(a) or providing cargo transportation services in connection with trade involving Cuba authorized by or exempt from the prohibitions of this part;
(4) Providers of telecommunications services authorized by § 515.542(b) through (d) or persons engaged in activities authorized by § 515.542(e);
(5) Entities organizing or conducting educational activities authorized by § 515.565(a);
(6) Religious organizations engaging in religious activities in Cuba authorized by § 515.566;
(7) Providers of travel and carrier services authorized by § 515.572; and
This authorization does not allow persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to establish a physical presence in Cuba for the purpose of providing lodging services in Cuba.
(8) Providers of services authorized by § 515.578.
(c)
(2) Specific licenses may be issued authorizing transactions necessary for the establishment and operation of news bureaus in the United States by Cuban organizations whose primary purpose is the gathering and dissemination of news to the general public.
The export or reexport to Cuba of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) may require separate authorization from the Department of Commerce.
(b)
(a)* * *
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(ii) The exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, to organizations administered or controlled by the Government of Cuba or the Cuban Communist Party of the following services:
(A) Services described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and
(B) Services described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section provided that such services are widely available to the public at no cost to the user.
(b) * * *
(1) The direct or indirect exportation or reexportation of services with knowledge or reason to know that such services are intended for a prohibited official of the Government of Cuba, as defined in § 515.337, or a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party, as defined in § 515.338, or to organizations administered or controlled by the Government of Cuba or the Cuban Communist Party, except as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(c)
(d)
(e)
This paragraph does not authorize U.S.-owned or -controlled firms in third countries to import goods of Cuban origin into the authorized trade zone. See § 515.559.
(2) The employment of Cuban nationals to develop mobile applications is authorized.
(e)
(1) Where available, a copy of the original blocking report filed with OFAC pursuant to § 501.603(b)(1) of this chapter.
(2) The date the unblocked funds transfer was released;
(3) The amount of funds unblocked;
(4) The name of the party to whom the funds were released; and
(5) A reference to this section as the legal authority under which the funds transfer was unblocked and returned.
(a) Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are authorized to provide goods and services to a Cuban national located in a third country who is an individual, provided that the transaction does not involve a commercial exportation, directly or indirectly, of goods or services to or from Cuba.
(b)(1)
(2)
(c) Depository institutions, as defined in § 515.333, are authorized to operate accounts for, extend credit to, and process funds transfers on behalf of the official missions of the Government of Cuba to the United States, and the official missions of the Government of Cuba to international organizations in the United States, and employees thereof, subject to the limitations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and provided that any depository institution making use of the authorization in this section must submit a report to the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Attn: Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation Division, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave NW., Annex, Washington, DC 20220, no later than 30 days following the establishment of the account. Such report shall include the name and address of the depository institution, the name of the account holder, and the account number.
Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are authorized to receive remittances in the United States from Cuban nationals, wherever located, provided that the remitter is not a prohibited official of the Government of Cuba, as defined in § 515.337, or a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party, as defined in § 515.338.
See § 515.572 for an authorization to provide services related to the receipt of remittances authorized by this section.
(a) All transactions, including payments, ordinarily incident to receipt of the following legal services from Cuba or from a Cuban national are authorized: legal advice and counseling on the requirements of and compliance with the laws of Cuba or any jurisdiction within Cuba, provided that such advice and counseling relate to transactions authorized by or exempt from the prohibitions of this part.
(b) The receipt of any other legal services from Cuba or a Cuban national, not otherwise authorized in this part, requires the issuance of a specific license.
The provision of nonscheduled emergency medical services in the United States to Cuban nationals is authorized.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing security zones in the waters of the Delaware River and Schuylkill River in Philadelphia, PA. These zones are intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Delaware River and Schuylkill River during the 2015 Papal visit on September 26, 2015, and September 27, 2015. During the enforcement period, no unauthorized vessels or people will be permitted to enter or move within the security zones without permission from the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. This security zone is necessary to provide security for Pope Francis.
This rule will be effective and enforced from 6:00 a.m. on September 25, 2015, to 12:00 p.m. on September 28, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0732]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (215) 271-4851,
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the final details for Pope Francis' arrival and departure were not known until August 4, 2015. This late notification precludes the Coast Guard from publishing a NPRM while meeting the security zone's objectives of protecting Pope Francis and accompanying high-ranking government officials, and protect against sabotage or terrorist attacks to human life, vessels, mariners, and waterfront facilities at or near this event.
For similar reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1., which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish security zones.
These temporary security zones are necessary to provide for the security of Pope Francis and accompanying high-ranking government officials, and protect against sabotage or terrorist attacks to human life, vessels, mariners, and waterfront facilities at or near this event.
On September 26, 2015, Pope Francis and accompanying high-ranking government officials will be arriving in Philadelphia, PA. The Coast Guard is establishing several security zones in portions of the Delaware River and Schuylkill River in Philadelphia, PA.
The first security zone will be enforced from September 26, 2015, at 6:00 a.m. until September 28, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. and includes all the waters of the Delaware River from the New Jersey shore line, to the Pennsylvania shore line, beginning at the east end of Little Tinicum Island extending in a Northeasterly direction and ending at the mouth of the Schuylkill River;
The second security zone will be enforced from September 25, 2015, at 6:00 a.m. until September 28, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. and includes all the waters of the Schuylkill River inside a boundary described as originating from the South 34th street Bridge north and ending at the West Girard Avenue Bridge.
The third security zone will be enforced from September 25, 2015, at 6:00 a.m. until September 28, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. and includes all the waters of the Schuylkill River inside a boundary described as originating from the mouth of the Schuylkill River and ending 500 yards north of the George C. Platt Memorial Bridge.
The fourth security zone will be enforced from September 26, 2015, at 6:00 a.m. until September 28, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. and includes all waters of the Delaware River adjacent to the Ben Franklin Bridge bounded in the East by the New Jersey shoreline, bounded in the West by the Pennsylvania shoreline, bounded in the South by Latitude 39°56′31″ N., and bounded in the North by Latitude 39°57′23″ N.
The fifth security zone will be enforced on September 27, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. and includes all water of the Delaware River adjacent to Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility, in North-East Philadelphia, PA, bounded from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line running east to west from points along the shoreline at latitude 40°00′54″ N., longitude 075°01′00″ W.; thence to latitude 40°01′15″ N., longitude 075°01′19″ W., and bounded on the North by a line running east to west from points along the shoreline at latitude 40°01′58″ N., longitude 074°59′24″ W.; thence to latitude 40°02′15″ N., longitude 074°59′55″ W.
Access to these security zones will be restricted during the specified date and time period. Only vessels or people specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay or his designated representative may enter or remain in the regulated area.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
Although this regulation will restrict access to the security zones, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: this rule will only be enforced for a limited duration; vessels may be granted permission to transit through the zone on a case-by-case basis; and the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These security zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons stated under paragraph D.1., Regulatory Planning and Review.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a security zone and is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are not required.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1) The first security zone will be enforced from September 26, 2015, at 6:00 a.m. until September 28, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. and includes all the waters of the Delaware River from the New Jersey shore line, to the Pennsylvania shore line, beginning at the east end of Little Tinicum Island extending in a Northeasterly direction and ending at the mouth of the Schuylkill River;
(2) The second security zone will be enforced from September 25, 2015, at 6:00 a.m. until September 28, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. and includes all the waters of the Schuylkill River inside a boundary described as originating from the South 34th street Bridge north and ending at the West Girard Avenue Bridge.
(3) The third security zone will be enforced from September 25, 2015, at 6:00 a.m. until September 28, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. and includes all the waters of the Schuylkill River inside a boundary described as originating from the mouth of the Schuylkill River and ending 500 yards north of the George C. Platt Memorial Bridge.
(4) The fourth security zone will be enforced from September 26, 2015, at 6:00 a.m. until September 28, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. and includes all waters of the Delaware River adjacent to the Ben Franklin Bridge bounded in the East by the New Jersey shoreline, bounded in the West by the Pennsylvania shoreline,
(5) The fifth security zone will be enforced on September 27, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. and includes all water of the Delaware River adjacent to Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility, in North-East Philadelphia, PA, bounded from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line running east to west from points along the shoreline at latitude 40°00′54″ N., longitude 075°01′00″ W.; thence to latitude 40°01′15″ N., longitude 075°01′19″ W., and bounded on the North by a line running east to west from points along the shoreline at latitude 40°01′58″ N., longitude 074°59′24″ W.; thence to latitude 40°02′15″ N., longitude 074°59′55″ W.
(b)
(1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering these security zones, except as authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to transit any of these security zones, the Captain of the Port or his designated representative can be contacted via Sector Delaware Bay Command Center (215) 271-4940 or on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(3) Vessels granted permission to transit through the security zones must do so in accordance with the directions provided by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative to the vessel.
(4) This section applies to all vessels wishing to transit through the security zones except vessels that are engaged in the following operations:
(i) Enforcing laws;
(ii) Servicing aids to navigation; or
(iii) Emergency response vessels.
(5) No person or vessel may enter or remain in a security zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port;
(6) Each person and vessel in a security zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port;
(c)
(2)
(d)
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide needed editorial changes.
Effective September 21, 2015.
Ms. Jennifer L. Hawes, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 571-372-6115; facsimile 571-372-6094.
This final rule amends the DFARS as follows—
1. Removes the phrase “and contracts” in two places in the prescription at DFARS 204.7304(a);
2. Revises cross references cited in DFARS 212.301, 217.770, and 225.370(d);
3. Revises the heading for DFARS subpart 213.5 to align with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 13.5 heading;
4. Updates a hyperlink at DFARS 215.404-71-3(b)(7);
5. Updates an address at DFARS 216.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)(
6. Directs contracting officers to additional DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) by adding a reference at DFARS 219.201;
7. Updates a reference to a DoD Directive at DFARS 239.7102-1;
8. Updates a hyperlink in DFARS clause 252.204-7012 and makes minor editorial revisions; and
9. Corrects a cross reference in DFARS clause 252.239-7009.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 204, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 219, 225, 239, and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(a) * * *
(7) DoD Directive 8140.01, Cyberspace Workforce Management; and
(c)
(d) The contract price does not include duty for end products or components for which the Contractor will claim duty-free entry.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the greater amberjack recreational sector in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) for the 2015 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS has determined that the recreational annual catch target (ACT) for Gulf greater amberjack will be reached by September 27, 2015. Therefore, NMFS is closing the recreational sector for greater amberjack in the Gulf EEZ on September 28, 2015. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf greater amberjack resource.
This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m., local time, September 28, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time on January 1, 2016.
Rich Malinowski, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
NMFS manages the reef fish fishery of the Gulf, which includes greater amberjack, under the Fishery Management Plan for
The 2015 recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for Gulf greater amberjack is 1,299,000 lb (589,216 kg) and the recreational ACT (recreational quota) is 1,130,000 lb (512,559 kg) as specified in 50 CFR 622.41(a)(2)(iii) and 622.39(a)(2)(ii), respectively.
Under 50 CFR 622.41(a)(2)(i), NMFS is required to close the recreational sector for greater amberjack when the recreational ACT is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined the 2015 recreational ACT will be reached by September 27, 2015. Accordingly, NMFS closes the recreational sector for Gulf greater amberjack effective 12:01 a.m., local time, September 28, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016, the start of the next fishing year.
During the recreational closure, the bag and possession limits for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ are zero. The prohibition on possession in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued applies regardless of whether greater amberjack were harvested in state or Federal waters.
The recreational sector for greater amberjack 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 Gulf greater amberjack and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(a)(2)(i) 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 greater amberjack constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the closure provisions was subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect greater amberjack. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially allow the recreational sector to exceed 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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the commercial sector for vermilion snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS projects that commercial landings for vermilion snapper will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for the July through December 2015 period on September 22, 2015. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic EEZ on September 22, 2015, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing season on January 1, 2016. This closure is necessary to protect the South Atlantic vermilion snapper resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, September 22, 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 vermilion snapper 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 Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial quota for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is divided into separate quotas for two 6-month time periods each year, January through June and July through December. For the July through December 2015 period, the commercial quota is 394,829 lb (179,091 kg), gutted weight (438,260 lb (198,791 kg), round weight), as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(ii)(C).
On September 4, 2015 (80 FR 53473), NMFS published a temporary rule in the
In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(f)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for vermilion snapper when the commercial quota for that 6-month portion of the fishing year has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for South Atlantic vermilion snapper for the July through December 2015 period will have been reached by September 22, 2015. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic vermilion snapper is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, September 22, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016. The commercial quota for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is 388,703 lb (176,313 kg), gutted weight (431,460 lb (195,707 kg), round weight),
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having vermilion snapper onboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such vermilion snapper prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, September 22, 2015. During the closure, the bag limit specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(5) and the possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(c)(1), apply to all harvest or possession of vermilion snapper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ. During the closure, the sale or purchase of vermilion snapper taken from the EEZ is prohibited. As specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(i), the prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of vermilion snapper that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, September 22, 2015, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limits and the prohibition on sale and purchase apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic vermilion snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(f)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
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 commercial sector for vermilion snapper constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect vermilion snapper since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment could result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.
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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for commercial snowy grouper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS projects commercial landings for snowy grouper will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) (equivalent to the commercial quota) by September 22, 2015. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic EEZ on September 22, 2015, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing season on January 1, 2016. This closure is necessary to protect the snowy grouper resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, September 22, 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 snowy grouper 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 Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The final rule implementing Regulatory Amendment 20 to the FMP recently revised the commercial quota (equivalent to the commercial ACL) for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic to 115,451 lb (52,368 kg), gutted weight; 136,233 lb (61,794 kg), round weight, for the remainder of the current fishing year, ending December 31, 2015, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(1) (80 FR 43033, July 21, 2015).
Under 50 CFR 622.193(b)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for snowy grouper when the commercial quota (commercial ACL) is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS projects that commercial landings of South Atlantic snowy grouper will reach the commercial ACL by September 22, 2015. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic snowy grouper is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, September 22, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016.
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper with snowy grouper on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such snowy grouper prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, September 22, 2015. During the commercial closure, harvest and possession of snowy grouper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits, as specified in § 622.187(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(1). Also during the commercial closure, the sale or purchase of snowy grouper taken from the South Atlantic EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of snowy grouper that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, September 22, 2015, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.
For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for snowy grouper would apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of snowy grouper 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(b)(1) 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 commercial sector for snowy grouper constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect snowy grouper since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL (commercial quota). Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL (commercial quota).
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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closures.
NMFS announces that the 2015 commercial bluefish and summer flounder quota allocated to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been harvested. Vessels issued commercial Federal fisheries permits for these fisheries may not land bluefish or summer flounder in Massachusetts for the remainder of calendar year 2015, unless additional quota becomes available through a transfer from another state. Regulations governing these fisheries require publication of this notice to advise Massachusetts that the quota has been harvested, and to advise Federal vessel and dealer permit holders that no Federal commercial quota is available to land bluefish or summer flounder in Massachusetts.
Effective 0001 hours, September 17, 2015, through December 31, 2015 for summer flounder and effective 0001 hours, September 19, 2015, through December 31, 2015 for bluefish.
Reid Lichwell, (978) 281-9112, or
Regulations governing the bluefish fishery and summer flounder fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The bluefish regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned on a percentage basis among the coastal states from Florida through Maine, while the summer flounder regulations require annual specification of commercial quota that is apportioned based on a percentage basis among coastal states from North Carolina through Maine. The processes to set the annual commercial quotas and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.162 and § 648.102 for bluefish and summer flounder, respectively.
The initial coastwide commercial quota for bluefish for the 2015 fishing year is 5,241,202 lb (2,377,371 kg) (80 FR 46848, August 6, 2015). The percent allocated to vessels landing bluefish in Massachusetts is 6.7167 percent, resulting in an initial commercial quota of 352,036 lb (159,681 kg). The 2015 allocation was adjusted to 602,036 lb (273,079 kg) to reflect quota transfers from other states.
The initial coastwide commercial quota for summer flounder for the 2015 fishing year was set at 11,069,410 lb (5,021,000 kg) (79 FR 78311, December 30, 2014). The percent allocated to vessels landing summer flounder in Massachusetts is 6.82046 percent, resulting in an initial commercial quota of 754,985 lb (340,165 kg). The 2015 allocation was adjusted to 760,785 lb (345,086 kg) to reflect quota overages from 2014 and quota transfers from other states.
The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), monitors the state commercial quotas and determines when a state's commercial quota has been harvested. NMFS is required to publish a notice in the
Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal permit holders agree, as a condition of the permit, not to land bluefish or summer flounder in any state that the Regional Administrator has determined no longer has commercial quota available. Therefore, vessels holding Federal commercial permits are prohibited from landing summer flounder, effective 0001 hours, September 17, 2015 and/or bluefish, effective 0001 hours, September 19, 2015 for the remainder of the 2015 calendar year, unless additional quota becomes available through a transfer and is announced in the
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest. This action closes the bluefish fishery and summer flounder fishery for Massachusetts until January 1, 2016, under current regulations. The regulations at § 648.103(b) require such action to ensure that vessels do not exceed state quotas. If implementation of this closure was delayed to solicit prior public comment, the quota for this fishing year would be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan and the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan. The AA further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the thirty (30) day delayed effectiveness period for the reason stated above.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.
NMFS adjusts the 2015 Winter II commercial scup quota. This action complies with Framework Adjustment 3 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, which established a process to allow the rollover of unused commercial scup quota from the Winter I period to the Winter II period.
Effective November 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
Reid Lichwell, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9112.
NMFS published a final rule in the
For 2015, the initial Winter II quota is 3,384,470 lb (1,535 mt), and the best available landings information indicates that 2,084,256 lb (945 mt) of the Winter I quota remains unused. The 2015 Winter I quota was 9,578,008 lb (4,344 mt). Consistent with the intent of Framework 3, the full amount of unused 2015 Winter I quota is transferred to Winter II, resulting in a revised 2015 Winter II quota of 5,468,726 lb (2,481 mt). Because the amount transferred is greater than 2,000,000 lb (907 mt), the per trip possession limit will increase from 12,000 lb (5,443 kg) to 18,000 lb (8,165 kg) during the Winter II quota period, consistent with the final rule that increased the Winter II trip limit, published on May 22, 2014 (79 FR 29371).
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has determined good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment on this in-season adjustment because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The landings data upon which this action is based are not available on a real-time basis and, consequently, were compiled only a short time before the determination was made that this action is warranted. If implementation of this in-season action is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the objective of the fishery management plan to achieve the optimum yield from the fishery could be compromised; deteriorating weather conditions during the latter part of the fishing year will reduce fishing effort and could prevent the annual quota from being fully harvested. This would conflict with the agency's legal obligation under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to achieve the optimum yield from a fishery on a continuing basis, resulting in a negative economic impact on vessels permitted to fish in this fishery.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at McNary Field, Salem, OR. After further review, the FAA found some airspace unnecessary for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before November 5, 2015.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-3751; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-20, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4563.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace at McNary Field, Salem, OR.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-3751; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-20.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class D
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015 and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Salem, McNary Field, OR (lat. 44°54′34″ N., long. 123°00′09″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of McNary Field from the 330° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 074° bearing, and that airspace within a 5-mile radius of McNary Field from the 074° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 330° bearing. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Salem, McNary Field, OR (lat. 44°54′34″ N., long. 123°00′09″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4-mile radius of McNary Field from the 330° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 074° bearing, and that airspace within a 5-mile radius of McNary Field from the 074° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 330° bearing.
Salem, McNary Field, OR (lat. 44°54′34″ N., long. 123°00′09″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.2-mile radius of McNary Field from the 164° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 315° bearing, and that airspace within a 6.7-mile radius of McNary Field from the 315° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 074° bearing, and that airspace within a 8.2-mile radius of McNary Field from the 074° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 164° bearing of the airport.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of public hearing.
This document contains proposed rules that would amend the regulations of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (Commission) to simplify and clarify the process for transferring approvals and to add sections dealing with general permits and modifications to approvals. These rules are designed to improve the Commission's administrative processes and add regulatory clarity.
Comments on the proposed rulemaking may be submitted to the Commission on or before November 9, 2015. The Commission has scheduled a public hearing on the proposed rulemaking, to be held October 29, 2015, in Grantville, Pennsylvania. The location of the public hearing is listed in the
Comments may be mailed to: Jason E. Oyler, Esq., General Counsel, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788, or by email to
The public hearing will be held on October 29, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., at the East Hanover Township Municipal Building, Main Hall, 8848 Jonestown Road, Grantville, Pa. Those wishing to testify are asked to notify the Commission in advance, if possible, at the regular or electronic addresses given below.
Jason E. Oyler, Esq., General Counsel, telephone: 717-238-0423, ext. 1312;
The Commission is proposing to make regulatory changes to improve its administrative processes and add regulatory clarity. The major focus of these changes is to revise and simplify the Commission's transfer regulation, explicitly add provisions for the modification of a Commission approved project, and establish a process for the Commission to develop general permits.
1. 18 CFR 806.6. Transfer of approvals. The Commission proposes to delete the current section and replace it with simplified and easier to understand regulatory language. This revision still allows the Executive Director to approve transfers of approvals. For approvals greater than 10 years old, the current regulation requires the project sponsor to submit entirely new applications in order to transfer the project. The Commission has received complaints that this requirement is onerous and has the effect of cutting short the term of the approval solely because ownership is changing, despite no changes to the project itself or the use of the water. The revised language will allow the transfer to occur conditioned on the submission of an updated metering and monitoring plan consistent with 18 CFR 806.30. For projects undergoing a change of ownership that have an unapproved withdrawal, consumptive use and/or diversion associated with them, usually referred to as grandfathered aspects of the project, the current requirement to submit applications for these grandfathered aspects contained in 18 CFR 806.6(c) and 18 CFR 806.4(a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(v) and (a)(3)(iv) is retained. However, the revised language removes the requirement that these applications must be made within 90 days of the date of a change in ownership. The Commission found that it was difficult for project sponsors to meet this deadline. The revised language will allow the Executive Director to approve the transfer with a condition requiring these applications to be made. This will allow the Commission to consider the complexity and number of grandfathered sources that will be subject to the application requirements and establish an appropriate and realistic timeframe in the condition for these applications to be submitted. Due to the revision of the language in 18 CFR 806.6, a corresponding revision was required to 18 CFR 806.4(c).
2. 18 CFR 806.15. Notice of Application. In paragraph (a), the Commission proposes to amend the time for notices to be published from 10 days to 20 days. The Commission has received feedback that the 10 days is not always sufficient, especially when newspaper notices are required. Extending this time frame allows project sponsors more time to complete the notices without compromising the public's opportunity to provide comment. New paragraphs (h) and (i) were added to provide specific requirements for the newly proposed 18 CFR 806.17 (regarding general permits) and 18 CFR 806.18 (regarding minor modifications), respectively.
3. New 18 CFR 806.17. General Permits. Currently, the Commission does not have a process to establish general permits. The Commission is proposing a new section that would provide the Commission the ability to develop, issue and administer general permits. The new regulation provides procedures for issuance and administration of permits, as well as standards for denial of coverage and when an individual approval would be required. In crafting this regulation, the Commission looked to similar regulations of its member jurisdictions for guidance. In addition, changes to 18 CFR 806.4 and 806.14 were necessary to accommodate the addition of this new section.
4. New 18 CFR 806.18. Approval modifications. The Commission is proposing to add a section specific to modifications of approvals. The Commission currently accepts applications for modification, but does not have a clear process set forth in the regulations. The proposed section also establishes the concept of minor and major modifications. The process for minor modifications provides a process for minor changes to approval conditions that are more likely to be administrative in nature and have a low degree of controversy, and therefore can appropriately be authorized by the Executive Director. In addition, a change to 18 CFR 806.14 is necessary to provide specific application requirements for minor modifications. Minor modifications are specifically listed. All modifications that are not specifically listed as a minor modification are major modifications. As a part of the rulemaking, the Commission has included a non-exhaustive list of common major modifications to provide guidance to the public and the regulated community.
Administrative practice and procedure, Water resources.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission proposes to amend 18 CFR part 806 as follows:
Secs. 3.4, 3.5(5), 3.8, 3.10 and 15.2, Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
(a) * * *
(9) Any project subject to coverage under a general permit issued under § 806.17.
(c) Any project that did not require Commission approval prior to January 1, 2007, and not otherwise exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(v), or (a)(3)(iv) pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, may be undertaken by a new project sponsor upon a change of ownership pending action on a transfer application under § 806.6.
(a) An existing Commission approval may be transferred to a new project sponsor by the Executive Director provided:
(1) The application for transfer is submitted within 90 days of a transfer or change in ownership of a project.
(2) The new project sponsor operates the project subject to the same terms and conditions of the existing approval pending approval of the transfer application.
(3) Any noncompliance by the existing project sponsor associated with the project or by the new project sponsor associated with other projects is resolved to the Commission's satisfaction.
(4) If the existing approval is greater than 10 years old, the transfer shall be conditioned to require the submission of an updated metering and monitoring plan consistent with the requirements of § 806.30.
(5) If the existing project has an unapproved withdrawal, consumptive use and/or diversion listed in paragraph (b), the transfer shall be conditioned to require the submission of a new
(6) Any modifications proposed by the new project sponsor shall be subject to a separate application and review process under §§ 806.14. and 806.18.
(b) Previously unapproved activities associated with a project subject to transfer under paragraph (a) of this section include:
(1) The project has an associated pre-compact consumptive water use that has not been subject to approval or had mitigation approved by the Commission.
(2) The project has an associated diversion that was initiated prior to January 23, 1971.
(3) The project has an associated groundwater withdrawal that was initiated prior to July 13, 1978 and that has not been approved by the Commission.
(4) The project has an associated surface water withdrawal that was initiated prior to November 11, 1995 and that has not been approved by the Commission.
(5) The project has a consumptive water use approval and has an associated withdrawal that has not been approved by the Commission.
(c) Upon undergoing a change of name that does not affect ownership or control of the project, the project sponsor must request a reissuance of the project's approval by the Executive Director within 90 days from the date of the change.
(a) Except with respect to applications to renew an existing Commission approval and Notices of Intent for approvals by rule and general permits, applications shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and, where applicable, shall be submitted on forms and in the manner prescribed by the Commission. Renewal applications shall include such information that the Commission determines to be necessary for the review of same, shall be subject to the standards set forth in Subpart C—Standards for Review and Approval of this part, and shall likewise be submitted on forms and in the manner prescribed by the Commission.
(d) Applications for minor modifications must be complete and will be on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Commission. Applications for minor modifications must contain the following:
(1) Description of the project;
(2) Description of all sources, consumptive uses and diversions related to the project;
(3) Description of the requested modification;
(4) Statement of the need for the requested modification;
(5) Demonstration that the anticipated impact of the requested modification will not adversely impact the water resources of the basin; and
(6) Any other information that the Commission or Executive Director deems necessary.
(a) Any project sponsor submitting an application to the Commission shall provide notice thereof to the appropriate agency of the member State, each municipality in which the project is located, and the county planning agency of each county in which the project is located. The project sponsor shall also publish notice of submission of the application at least once in a newspaper of general circulation serving the area in which the project is located. The project sponsor shall also meet any of the notice requirements set forth in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section, if applicable. All notices required under this section shall be provided or published no later than 20 days after submission of the application to the Commission and shall contain a description of the project, its purpose, the requested quantity of water to be withdrawn obtained from for sources other than withdrawals or consumptively used, and the address, electronic mail address, and phone number of the project sponsor and the Commission. All such notices shall be in a form and manner as prescribed by the Commission.
(h) For Notices of Intent (NOI) seeking coverage under a general permit, the project sponsor shall provide the NOI to the appropriate agency of the member State and each municipality and county planning agency in which the project is located and any additional notice identified in the general permit.
(i) For applications for minor modifications, the project sponsor shall provide notice of the application to the appropriate agency of the member State and each municipality and county planning agency in the which the project is located.
(a)
(1) Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations or activities,
(2) Require the same limitations or operating conditions, or both,
(3) Require the same or similar monitoring and reporting, and
(4) Will result in minimal adverse impacts.
(b)
(2) At least 30 days shall be provided for interested members of the public and Federal, State and local agencies to provide written comments on a proposed general permit.
(3) The Commission or Executive Director may, in its discretion, hold a public hearing on a proposed general permit.
(4) The issuance of a general permit adopted by the Commission will be published in the
(c)
(1) Any general permit issued under this section shall set forth the applicability of the permit and the conditions that apply to any diversion, withdrawal or consumptive use authorized by such general permit.
(2) The Commission may fix a term to any general permit issued.
(3) A project sponsor shall obtain permission to divert, withdraw or consumptively use water in accordance with a general permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Commission, in a form and manner determined by the Commission.
(4) Approval of coverage under a general permit shall be determined by the Executive Director or by any other manner that the Commission shall establish for any general permit.
(5) The Commission may set a fee for NOIs to any general permit.
(6) A project sponsor shall provide notice for NOIs in accordance with § 806.15(h) and any additional notice requirements that the Commission may adopt for any general permit.
(7) The requirements of § 806.16 apply to the review of NOIs to any general permit.
(8) Upon reissuance or amendment of a general permit, all project sponsors permitted to divert, withdraw or consumptively use water in accordance with the previous general permit shall be permitted to continue to operate with the renewed or modified general permit unless otherwise notified by the Commission.
(d)
(1) The project or project sponsor does not or can no longer meet the criteria for coverage under a general permit.
(2) The diversion, withdrawal or consumptive use, individually or in combination with other similar Commission regulated activities, is causing or has the potential to cause adverse impacts to water resources or competing water users.
(3) The project does not meet the requirements of § 806.21(a) or (b).
(4) The project includes other diversions, withdrawals or consumptive uses that require an individual approval and the issuance of both an individual approval and a general permit for the project would constitute an undue administrative burden on the Commission.
(5) The Executive Director determines that a project cannot be effectively regulated under a general permit and is more effectively regulated under an individual approval.
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Correction of typographical errors;
(2) Changes to monitoring or metering conditions;
(3) Addition of sources of water for consumptive use;
(4) Changes to the authorized water uses;
(5) Changes to conditions setting a schedule for developing, implementing, and/or reporting on monitoring, data collection and analyses;
(6) Changes to the design of intakes;
(7) Increases to total system limits that were established based on the projected demand of the project; and
(8) Modify approval to allow the modification of extraction well network used for groundwater remediation systems.
(d)
(1) Increases in the quantity of water withdrawals, consumptive uses or diversions;
(2) Increases to peak day consumptive water use;
(3) Increases to the instantaneous withdrawal rate or changes from a single withdrawal rate to a varied withdrawal rate;
(4) Changes affecting passby flows requirements; and
(5) Changes that have the potential for adverse impacts to water resources or competing water users.
(e)
(2) The Commission or Executive Director may approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for minor modification, or direct that an application for major modification be made.
(3) The Commission may approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for major modification.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to further implement a requirement of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as modified by a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, that addresses required sources of electronic parts for defense contractors and subcontractors.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before November 20, 2015, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2014-D005, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571-372-6106.
DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS to further implement section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81), as modified by section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291). On May 6, 2014, DoD published a final rule under DFARS Case 2012-D055, entitled “Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts” (78 FR 26092). That final rule constituted the initial partial implementation of section 818.
After publication of the final rule under FAR Case 2012-D055, DoD published on May 9, 2014, a notice of a public meeting, which was held on June 16, 2014, to address further implementation of detections and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts. There were 79 registered attendees and eight presenters at the public meeting, as well as robust discussion. Some of the issues raised at the public meeting are addressed in this proposed rule, such as—
• Removal of embedded software or firmware from the definition of “electronic part”;
• Clarification of traceability expectations; and
• Additional guidance on determination of risk.
The rule proposes amendments to DFARS 246.870 and a new clause at DFARS 252.246-70XX, Sources of Electronic Parts, to further implement paragraph (c)(3) of section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012, as modified by section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2015, which requires DoD to issue regulations establishing requirements that DoD and DoD contractors and subcontractors, except in limited circumstances, shall acquire electronic parts from trusted suppliers in order to further address the avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts.
Because of the complexities relating to use of trusted suppliers by DoD and the requirement of section 818, paragraph (c)(3)(C), to establish qualification requirements consistent with 10 U.S.C. 2319, those aspects of section 818 will be addressed in a separate DFARS Case 2015-D020, DoD Use of Trusted Suppliers for Electronic Parts.
This proposed rule addresses requirements for DoD contractors and subcontractors at all tiers, as set forth in paragraphs (c)(3)(A), (B), and (D). Although some paragraphs of section 818 only apply to contractors subject to the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), paragraph (c)(3) applies to all DoD contractors and subcontractors, when obtaining electronic parts to be provided to DoD under a DoD contract.
DoD proposes to include the new clause at DFARS 252.246-70XX, Sources of Electronic Parts, as prescribed at 246.870-3(b), whenever procuring—
(1) Electronic parts;
(2) End items, components, parts, or assemblies containing electronic parts; or
(3) Services, if the contractor will supply electronic parts or components, parts, or assemblies containing electronic parts as part of the service.
Unlike the clause at 252.246-7007, Contractor Counterfeit Electronic Part Detection and Avoidance System, this new clause is not limited to contractors subject to CAS and will apply to small business set-asides, since paragraph (c)(3) of section 818 applies to all DoD-contractors and subcontractors at all tiers that are providing electronic parts or assemblies containing electronic parts. Therefore, the clause includes flowdown to subcontracts, including subcontracts for commercial items.
DoD does not propose to expand the requirements of DFARS 252.246-7007, or the associated clause DFARS 252.244-7001, Contractor Purchasing System Administration, Alternate I, to non-CAS covered prime contractors, because paragraph (e)(1) of section 818 specifically applies the requirements for a system for avoidance and detection of counterfeit parts to “covered contractors.” However, the DFARS flows down the system requirements to subcontractors regardless of CAS coverage.
The clause DFARS 252.246-70XX includes new proposed definitions of “authorized dealer” and “trusted supplier.”
• DoD notes that “authorized dealer” does not equate to “authorized reseller.” An authorized reseller is not bound to obtain parts from the original manufacturer. The reseller can obtain parts from an authorized dealer, an aftermarket manufacturer, or independent distributor, for example. An “authorized dealer,” however, has a contractual arrangement with the original manufacturer or current design activity, including an authorized aftermarket manufacturer, to buy, stock, repackage, sell, and distribute its product lines.
• The term “trusted supplier” includes not only the original manufacturer, an authorized dealer for the part, or a supplier that obtains the part exclusively from the original component manufacturer of the part or an authorized dealer, but also includes a supplier that a contractor or subcontractor has identified as a trustworthy supplier, using DoD-adopted counterfeit prevention industry standards and processes, including testing, in accordance with section 818(c)(3)(A)(iii) and (D) of the NDAA for FY 2012, as modified by section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2015.
In addition to the requirements to acquire electronic components from trusted suppliers, contractors and subcontractors that are not the original manufacturer are required to have a risk-based system to trace electronic parts from the original manufacturer to product acceptance by the Government. If such traceability is not feasible for a particular part, the contractor system must provide for the consideration of an alternative part or utilization of tests and inspections in order to avoid counterfeit electronic parts. If it is not possible to obtain an electronic part from a trusted supplier, the contractor is required to notify the contracting officer. The contractor is then responsible for inspection, testing, and authentication, in accordance with existing applicable industry standards, of electronic parts obtained from sources other than a trusted supplier.
The rule also proposes a definition in DFARS 202.101 of “original manufacturer” to include the “contract electronics manufacturer,” the “original component manufacturer,” or the “original equipment manufacturer,” which are also defined. The term “contract electronics manufacturer” includes manufacturers that produce goods, using electronic parts, for other companies on a contract basis under the label or brand of the other organizations, or fabricate an electronic part under a contract with, or with the express written authority of, the original component manufacturer, based on the original components manufacturer's designs.
In addition, the rule proposes to delete the sentence “The term ‘electronic part’ includes any embedded software or firmware” from the definition of “electronic part.” Although electronic parts may include embedded software or firmware, the requirements of this rule are more applicable to hardware. Further industry standards are still under development to address testing of embedded software or firmware in electronic parts.
There are conforming changes to DFARS clause 252.246-7007, Contractor Counterfeit Electronic Part Detection and Avoidance System, in the definitions and processes for traceability.
This rule is part of DoD's retrospective plan, completed in August 2011, under Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” DoD's full plan and updates can be accessed at:
DoD intends to apply the requirements of section 818(c)(3) to contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) and contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, including commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) items.
41 U.S.C. 1905 governs the applicability of laws to contracts or subcontracts in amounts not greater than the SAT. It is intended to limit the applicability of laws to such contracts or subcontracts. 41 U.S.C. 1905 provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the FAR Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt contracts or subcontracts at or below the SAT, the law will apply to them. The Director, DPAP, is the appropriate authority to make comparable determinations for regulations to be published in the DFARS, which is part of the FAR system of regulations.
DoD intends to determine that it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to apply the rule to contracts at or below the SAT, because a substantial percentage of electronic parts are valued below the SAT. An exception for contracts at or below the SAT would severely decrease the intended effect of the statute and increase the risk of receiving counterfeit parts, which may present a significant mission, security, or safety hazard.
41 U.S.C. 1906 governs the applicability of laws to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, and is intended to limit the applicability of laws to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items. 41 U.S.C. 1906 provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the FAR Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt commercial item contracts, the provision of law will apply to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items. Likewise, 41 U.S.C. governs the applicability of laws to COTS items, with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy the decision authority to determine that it is in the best interest of the Government to apply a provision of law to acquisitions of COTS items in the FAR. The Director, DPAP, is the appropriate authority to make comparable determinations for regulations to be published in the DFARS, which is part of the FAR system of regulations.
Since electronic parts are generally COTS items, and studies have shown that a large proportion of proven counterfeit parts were purchased as commercial items, including COTS items, DoD intends to determine that it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to apply the rule to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, including COTS items, as defined at FAR 2.101. An exception for contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, including COTS items, would severely decrease the intended effect of the statute and increase the risk of receiving counterfeit parts, which may present a significant mission, security, or safety hazard.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD expects that this proposed rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601,
This proposed rule further implements section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81), as modified by section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2015.
The objective of this rule is to avoid acquisition of counterfeit electronic parts by requiring DoD contractors and subcontractors, except in limited circumstances, to buy electronic parts from trusted suppliers, in accordance with section 818(c)(3) of the NDAA for FY 2012.
Based on Federal Procurement Data System data for FY 2013 and 2014, DoD estimates that this rule will apply to approximately 33,000 small entities that have DoD prime contracts or subcontracts for electronic parts; end items, components, parts, or assemblies containing electronic parts; or services, if the contractor will supply electronic parts or components, parts, or assemblies containing electronic parts as part of the service.
In addition to the requirements to acquire electronic components from trusted suppliers, contractors and subcontractors that are not the original manufacturer or authorized dealer are required have a risk-based process to trace electronic parts from the original manufacturer to product acceptance by the Government. If that is not feasible, the Contractor shall have a process to complete an evaluation that includes consideration of alternative parts or utilization of tests and inspections commensurate with the risk. If it is not possible to obtain an electronic part from a trusted supplier, the contractor is required to notify the contracting officer. The contractor is responsible for inspection, testing, and authentication, in accordance with existing applicable industry standards, of electronic parts obtained from sources other than a trusted supplier. Notifying the contracting officer if it is not possible to obtain an electronic part from a trusted supplier would probably involve a mid-level of executive involvement.
No relevant Federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
DoD was unable to identify any significant alternatives that would reduce the economic impact on small entities and still fulfill the requirements of the statute.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2014-D005), in correspondence.
The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Accordingly, DoD has submitted a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning “Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts—Further Implementation” to the Office of Management and Budget.
A. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average one hour 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 annual reporting burden estimated as follows:
B. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or email
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the DFARS, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G. Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060, or email
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 202, 212, 246, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
The additions and revision read as follows:
(1) Produces goods, using electronic parts, for other companies on a contract basis under the label or brand name of the other organization; or
(2) Fabricates an electronic part under a contract with, or with the express written authority of, the original component manufacturer based on the original component manufacturer's designs, formulas, and/or specifications.
(f) * * *
(xviii) * * *
(C) Use the clause at 252.246-70XX, Sources of Electronic Parts, as prescribed in 246.870-3(b), to comply with section 818(c)(3) of Public Law 112-81, as amended by section 817 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291).
(a) Partially implements section 818(c) and (e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81), as amended by section 817 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291); and
As used in this section—
(1) The original manufacturer of a part;
(2) An authorized dealer for the part;
(3) A supplier that obtains the part exclusively from the original component manufacturer of the part or an authorized dealer; or
(4) A supplier that a contractor or subcontractor has identified as a trustworthy supplier, using DoD-adopted counterfeit prevention industry standards and processes, including testing (see
The additions read as follows:
(a)
(i) Obtain electronic parts that are in production or currently available in stock from—
(A) The original manufacturers of the parts;
(B) Their authorized dealers; or
(C) Suppliers that obtain such parts exclusively from the original manufacturers of the parts or their authorized dealers;
(ii) Obtain electronic parts that are not in production, or not currently available from stock, from suppliers identified by the contractor or subcontractor as trusted suppliers, provided that—
(A) The contractor uses established counterfeit prevention industry standards and processes, including testing, for identifying such trusted suppliers;
(B) The contractor or subcontractor assumes responsibility for the authenticity of parts provided by such suppliers (see 231.205-71); and
(C) The selection of such trusted suppliers is subject to review and audit by appropriate Department of Defense officials.
(iii) If authorized to purchase electronic parts from the Federal Supply Schedule, contractors and subcontractors are still required to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable.
(2) If electronic parts are not available from trusted suppliers, the Government requires contractors and subcontractors to comply with the notification, inspection, testing, and authentication requirements of paragraph (c) of the clause at 252.246-70XX, Sources of Electronic Parts.
(b)
The addition reads as follows:
(b) Use the clause at 252.246-70XX, Sources of Electronic Parts, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, when procuring—
(1) Electronic parts;
(2) End items, components, parts, or assemblies containing electronic parts; or
(3) Services, if the contractor will supply electronic parts or components, parts, or assemblies containing electronic parts as part of the service.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Produces goods, using electronic parts, for other companies on a contract basis under the label or brand name of the other organization; or
(2) Fabricates an electronic part under a contract with, or with the express written authority of, the original component manufacturer based on the original component manufacturer's designs, formulas, and/or specifications.
(1) The original manufacturer of a part;
(2) An authorized dealer for the part;
(3) A supplier that obtains the part exclusively from the original component manufacturer of the part or an authorized dealer; or
(4) A supplier that a contractor or subcontractor has identified as a trustworthy supplier, using DoD-adopted counterfeit prevention industry standards and processes, including testing (see
(c) * * *
(4) Processes to—
(i) Enable tracking of electronic parts from the original manufacturer to product acceptance by the Government, whether the electronic parts are supplied as discrete electronic parts or are contained in assemblies; and
(ii) If the Contractor cannot establish this traceability from the original manufacturer for a specific part, complete an evaluation that includes consideration of alternative parts or utilization of tests and inspections commensurate with the risk (see paragraph (c)(2) of this clause).
(5) Use of trusted suppliers in accordance with the clause at 252.246-70XX, Sources of Electronic Parts.
As prescribed in 246.870-3(b), use the following clause:
(a)
(1) Produces goods, using electronic parts, for other companies on a contract basis under the label or brand name of the other organization; or
(2) Fabricates an electronic part under a contract with, or with the express written authority of, the original component manufacturer based on the original component manufacturer's designs, formulas, and/or specifications.
(1) The original manufacturer of a part;
(2) An authorized dealer for the part;
(3) A supplier that obtains the part exclusively from the original component manufacturer of the part or an authorized dealer; or
(4) A supplier that a contractor or subcontractor has identified as a trustworthy supplier, using DoD-adopted counterfeit prevention industry standards and processes, including testing (see
(b)
(1) Obtain electronic parts that are in production or currently available in stock from—
(i) The original manufacturers of the parts;
(ii) Their authorized dealers; or
(iii) Suppliers that obtain such parts exclusively from the original manufacturers of the parts or their authorized dealers; and
(2) Obtain electronic parts that are not in production, or not currently available in stock, from suppliers identified by the Contractor as trusted suppliers, provided that—
(i) The Contractor uses established counterfeit prevention industry standards and processes, including testing, for identifying such trusted suppliers;
(ii) The Contractor assumes responsibility for the authenticity of parts provided by such suppliers (see DFARS 231.205-71); and
(iii) The Contractor's selection of such trusted suppliers is subject to review and audit by appropriate Department of Defense officials.
(c)
(1) Enable tracking of electronic parts from the original manufacturer to product acceptance by the Government, whether the electronic part is supplied as a discrete electronic part or is contained in an assembly; and
(2) If the Contractor cannot establish this traceability from the original manufacturer for a specific part, complete an evaluation that includes consideration of alternative parts or utilization of tests and inspections commensurate with the risk. Determination of risk shall be based on the assessed probability of receiving a counterfeit electronic part; the probability that the inspection or test selected will detect a counterfeit electronic part; and the potential negative consequences of a counterfeit electronic part being installed (
(d)(1)
(2) The Contractor is responsible for inspection, testing, and authentication, in accordance with existing applicable industry standards, of electronic parts obtained from sources other than those described in paragraph (b) of this clause.
(e)
(End of clause)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
NHTSA is proposing a rule prescribing procedures for the assessment of civil penalties and for
NHTSA is also proposing to update our regulations to conform it to the statutory civil penalty maximums enacted in MAP-21, the increased penalties and damages for odometer fraud, and the statutory penalty for knowingly and willfully submitting materially false or misleading information to the Secretary after certifying the same information as accurate.
Submit comments on or before November 20, 2015.
You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please be sure to mention the docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket at 202-366-9322.
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Thomas Healy, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building, W41-211, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992 Fax: (202) 366-3820.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21 or the Act) was signed into law on July 6, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-141). Section 31203(a) of MAP-21 amends the civil penalty provision of the Safety Act, as amended and recodified, 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, by requiring the Secretary of Transportation to consider various factors in determining the amount of a civil penalty or compromise. This statutory language confirms that the Secretary has the power to assess civil penalties. The factors that the Secretary shall consider in determining the amount of civil penalty or compromise are codified in amendments to 49 U.S.C. 30165(c). Section 31203(b) of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to issue a final rule, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, providing an interpretation of the penalty factors set forth in MAP-21. Public Law 112-141, section 31203, 126 Stat. 758 (2012). This NPRM proposes an interpretation of the civil penalty factors in 49 U.S.C. 30165(c) for NHTSA to consider in determining the amount of civil penalty or compromise and proposes procedures for NHTSA to assess civil penalties under a delegation from the Secretary, 49 CFR 1.95 and 1.81. The proposed procedure for assessing civil penalties and the proposed interpretation of the civil penalty factors is intended to apply only to matters falling under section 30165.
This rulemaking also sets forth NHTSA's amendment of its penalty regulation, 49 CFR 578.6, to conform it to the statutory language and maximums enacted in MAP-21.
Prior to the enactment of MAP-21, 49 U.S.C. 30165(c) stated, “In determining the amount of a civil penalty or compromise, the appropriateness of the penalty or compromise to the size of the business of the person charged and the gravity of the violation shall be considered.” 49 U.S.C. 30165(c) (2011). The statute did not specify who would assess the civil penalties. However, the statute specifically stated that “The Secretary of Transportation may compromise the amount of a civil penalty imposed under this section.” 49 U.S.C. 30165(b)(1). Construing these provisions, NHTSA, through the authority delegated from the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 49 CFR 1.50 (2011), compromised civil penalties, but did not assess them.
NHTSA has in fact compromised, or settled, many civil penalty actions.
Congress has revised the language in 49 U.S.C. 30165(c), which now states in part that “In determining the amount of a civil penalty or compromise under this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall consider the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation.” The plain language of the statute indicates Congress' intent that the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to determine the amount of a civil penalty and to impose such penalty.
NHTSA's reading of the statute, as amended, is supported by the legislative history. For example, on July 29, 2011, Senator Pryor introduced S. 1449, the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of 2011 (Mariah's Act). This bill contained language listing the factors that the Secretary of Transportation shall consider in determining the amount of civil penalty
NHTSA historically has considered the gravity of the violation when compromising civil penalties. Consideration of the gravity of the violation has involved a variety of factors, depending on the case. The factors that have been important or germane have included the nature of the violation, the nature of a safety-related defect or noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (“FMVSS”), the safety risk, the number of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment involved, the delay in submitting a defect and noncompliance information report, the information in the possession of the violator regarding the violation, other actions by the violator, and the relationship of the violation to the integrity and administration of the agency's programs.
In the past, NHTSA also has considered the size of the violator when compromising civil penalties. With respect to civil penalties involving small businesses, among the factors that have been considered are the violator's ability to pay, including its ability to pay over time, and any effect on the violator's ability to continue to do business.
MAP-21 vests authority, responsibility, and discretion in the Secretary to impose civil penalties for violations of the Safety Act and regulations thereunder. Pursuant to 49 CFR 1.95, this authority has been delegated to NHTSA. The amendments to MAP-21 providing the Secretary with the authority to assess civil penalties do not establish procedures for the assessment of those penalties. In order to ensure that NHTSA's assessment of civil penalties, as delegated to NHTSA by the Secretary, comports with the constitutional requirements of due process, NHTSA is proposing to adopt informal procedures to assess civil penalties pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30165.
In developing the procedures for conducting a hearing to impose civil penalties, NHTSA considered its past practices with respect to civil penalty actions related to odometer fraud under 49 U.S.C. chapter 327, proceedings under 49 CFR part 599, as well as its other procedures relating to making determinations related to violations of the Safety Act and the practices of other operating administrations of the Department of Transportation.
The procedures for a hearing to assess civil penalties need not take all the formal trappings of a trial in a court of law. The Supreme Court has recognized that due process is flexible and that the procedural protections needed to ensure due process differ as the situation demands.
NHTSA does not believe that a formal adjudication is required in order to impose civil penalties for a violation of the Safety Act or regulations thereunder. If Congress wanted a proceeding with a formal adjudication on the record, it would have made that intent clear. Indeed, in another statute administered by NHTSA, such a procedure is required to determine certain violations.
Under the proposed procedures, NHTSA, through the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement, will begin a civil penalty proceeding by serving a notice of initial demand for civil penalties on a person (
The notice will also include documentation that the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement relied on to determine the alleged violations of a statute or regulation administered by NHTSA giving rise to liability for civil penalties or the amount of civil penalties in the initial demand.
NHTSA proposes that the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement or his or her designee serve the initial demand for civil penalties via U.S mail, overnight or express courier service, facsimile, electronic mail, or personally. NHTSA proposes that service of the initial demand for civil penalties or order by a person's duly authorized representative (including, but not limited to, a person's agent for accepting service designated pursuant to 49 CFR part 551) constitutes service upon that person.
Within 30 calendar days of the date on which the initial demand for civil penalties is issued, the respondent must pay the amount of the civil penalty, elect to provide an informal response, or request a hearing. If the respondent does not pay the amount of the civil penalty, elect to provide an informal response, or request a hearing within the 30 day limit, NHTSA proposes to construe this as a waiver of the respondent's right to appear and contest the allegations. This would authorize the Chief Counsel, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the initial demand for civil penalties and to assess an appropriate civil penalty.
The respondent may elect to pay the civil penalty that was proposed in the initial demand. If the respondent elects to make the payment, NHTSA will direct the respondent as to how to make the payment, including any installment plan permitted.
If the respondent to the initial demand for civil penalties elects to make an informal response, that person must submit to the Chief Counsel and to the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement in writing any arguments, views or supporting documentation that dispute or mitigate that person's liability for, or the amount of, civil penalties to be imposed. The respondent must submit these materials within 30 days of the date on which the initial demand for civil penalties is issued. A person who has elected to make an informal response to an initial demand for civil penalties may also request a conference with the Chief Counsel. Because traveling to the Department of Transportation's headquarters in Washington, DC may be burdensome for some smaller companies responding to an initial demand for civil penalties, we are proposing to allow a person responding to an initial demand for civil penalties to request that the conference with the Chief Counsel be conducted by telephone. If the respondent elects to request a conference with the Chief Counsel and fails to attend the conference without good cause shown, the Chief Counsel may, without further notice to the respondent, find the facts to be as alleged in the initial demand for civil penalties and assess an appropriate civil penalty. This decision will constitute final agency action and no appeal to the Administrator will be permitted.
The Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement would be permitted to provide rebuttal information to the Chief Counsel, replying to the information submitted by the respondent. After consideration of the submissions of the Assistant Chief Counsel and the Respondent, including any relevant information presented at a conference, the Chief Counsel may dismiss the initial demand for civil penalties in whole or in part. If the Chief Counsel does not dismiss the demand in its entirety, he or she may issue an order assessing a civil penalty. For civil penalty orders exceeding $1,000,000, the decision of the Chief Counsel becomes a final decision 20 days (including weekends and holidays) after it is issued unless the respondent files a timely appeal with the Administrator. If the respondent elects not to appeal to the Administrator within the 20-day period, then the Chief Counsel's decision is a final decision subject to judicial review. Civil penalty orders of $1,000,000 or less are final upon issuance by the Chief Counsel and subject to judicial review at that time.
Any assessment of civil penalties will be made only after considering the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation. As appropriate, the determination will include consideration of the nature of the defect or noncompliance; knowledge by the respondent of its obligations under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301; the severity of the risk of injury posed by the defect or non-compliance; the occurrence or absence or injury; the number of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment distributed with the defect or noncompliance; actions taken by the respondent to identify, investigate, or mitigate the condition; the appropriateness of such penalty in relation to the size of the business of the respondent, including the potential for undue adverse economic impacts; and other relevant and appropriate factors.
NHTSA intends for this informal response process to be less rigid than the procedures for conducting a hearing discussed below. For example, a respondent that elects an informal response would be permitted to bring in employees or other representatives (within reason) to explain facts and circumstances relating to the events described in the initial demand for civil penalties or any other factors that the respondent believes are relevant. A respondent may find it beneficial to be able to present the views of employees or representatives to the Chief Counsel in person, considering that if the respondent elects a hearing the presentation of witness testimony will be committed to the discretion of the Hearing Officer. Further, NHTSA envisions that any written materials that the respondent provides as part of an informal response would not have the formality of legal briefs submitted pursuant to the hearing procedures in this proposal and would allow for flexibility in the respondent's response. It is also NHTSA's intent that the conference between the Chief Counsel and the respondent consist of informal discussion and would not take on the structure of an adversarial proceeding.
If, in response to an initial demand for civil penalties, a person requests a hearing, the Chief Counsel will designate a Hearing Officer to preside over the hearing. The Hearing Officer appointed by the Chief Counsel may have no other responsibility, either direct or supervisory, for the investigation or enforcement of the violation for which the initial demand for civil penalties relates and will not have any prior connection to the case.
The Hearing Officer will have the authority to conduct the proceeding and arrange for NHTSA and the person served with the initial demand for civil penalties to submit additional documents for the administrative record, regulate the course of the hearing, and take notice of matters that are not subject to a bona fide dispute and are commonly known in the community or are ascertainable from readily available sources of known accuracy.
With respect to the type of hearing proposed, NHTSA believes that most civil penalty determinations can be made based solely on written submissions because in the vast majority of instances, the evidence to establish, or refute, a respondent's liability for civil penalties and facts for the application of the penalty factors will consist of documents. Therefore, we are proposing that the Hearing Officer will have the discretion to conduct an in-person hearing and allow witness testimony only if an in-person hearing is needed, in the opinion of the Hearing Officer, to resolve any factual and/or legal issues that cannot be easily resolved by written submissions.
If the respondent elects to request a hearing, the respondent must submit to the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement two complete copies via hand delivery, use of an overnight or express courier service, facsimile, or electronic mail containing: (1) A detailed statement of factual and legal issues in dispute; and (2) all statements and documents supporting the respondent's case within 30 days of the date on which the initial demand for civil penalties is issued. If the respondent wishes for the hearing to be conducted in-person, the respondent must also submit the basis for its request for the in-person hearing (
If an in-person hearing is granted and the respondent fails to attend the in-person hearing without good cause shown, the Hearing Officer is authorized, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts as alleged in the initial demand for civil penalties and to assess an appropriate civil penalty. This decision will constitute final agency action and no appeal to the Administrator will be permitted.
NHTSA may supplement the record with additional information, including disclosure of proposed witnesses and their expected testimony, prior to the hearing. A copy of such information will be provided to the respondent no later than 3 days before the hearing. These procedures allow the Hearing Officer to focus the inquiry at the hearing and eliminate the need for discovery because both the agency and respondent will be in possession of the documents on which the other party intends to rely and appraised of all expected witness testimony. Therefore, we propose that discovery not be permitted in any hearing conducted pursuant to these procedures.
The administrative record of an in-person hearing shall contain the notice of initial demand for civil penalties and any supporting documentation that accompanied the initial demand; any documentation submitted by the respondent, any further documentation submitted by the Agency as a reply to the request for a hearing or presented at an in-person hearing; any additional materials presented at an in-person hearing; the transcript of the hearing (if any); and any other materials that the Hearing Officer determines are relevant. In considering the admission of evidence into the administrative record, the Hearing Officer will not be bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
In the event that the Hearing Officer determines that witness testimony is not necessary, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement will submit a written reply with the agency's responses to the arguments and documents included in the respondent's request for a hearing. With respect to the administrative record where there is no in-person hearing, NHTSA proposes that all documents contained in and with its initial demand, any response thereto, or any reply automatically would be part of the administrative record. In considering the admission of evidence into the administrative record, the Hearing Officer will not be bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
At the hearing, NHTSA will have the evidentiary burden of establishing the violation giving rise to civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. 30165. In the event that the hearing is conducted by written submission, the Hearing Officer will make his or her decision based on NHTSA's initial demand for civil penalties and any included documents, the respondent's request for a hearing and any included documents, NHTSA's reply (including any documents) to the arguments and documents provided in the respondent's request for a hearing, and any other evidence in the record.
In the event that the Hearing Officer grants an in-person hearing, NHTSA will first present any evidence the agency believes is relevant for the administrative record. If permitted by the Hearing Officer, NHTSA may call
In the event that the Hearing Officer grants an in-person hearing, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement and the respondent may present arguments on the issues involved in the case after all the evidence has been presented.
A respondent challenging the amount of a civil penalty proposed to be assessed will have the burden of proving the mitigating circumstances. For example, a respondent challenging the amount of a civil penalty on the grounds that the penalty would have an undue adverse economic impact would have the burden of proving that undue impact. It is appropriate that the burden is placed on the respondent as the respondent is more likely to have relevant financial evidence than NHTSA.
After the hearing is completed, the Hearing Officer will issue a written decision based solely on the administrative record, including any testimony offered at an in-person hearing. Any assessment of civil penalties will be made only after considering the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation. As appropriate, the determination will include consideration of the nature of the defect or noncompliance, knowledge by the respondent of its obligations under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, the severity of the risk of injury, the occurrence or absence or injury, the number of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment distributed with the defect or noncompliance, actions taken by the respondent to identify, investigate, or mitigate the condition, the appropriateness of such penalty in relation to the size of the business of the respondent, including the potential for undue adverse economic impacts, and other relevant and appropriate factors, including those discussed below.
For civil penalties exceeding $1,000,000, the decision of the Hearing Officer will become a final decision 20 calendar days (including weekends and holidays) after it is issued, unless the respondent files a timely appeal with the Administrator before the expiration of 20 days. If the respondent elects not to appeal to the Administrator within the 20-day period, then the Hearing Officer's decision is a final decision subject to judicial review. Civil penalty orders of $1,000,000 or less are final upon issuance by the Hearing Officer and subject to judicial review at that time.
In matters where the civil penalties assessed by either the Chief Counsel or the Hearing Officer exceed $1,000,000, the proposed regulations provide an opportunity for the respondent aggrieved by the order assessing a civil penalty to file an appeal with the Administrator.
The Administrator will affirm the order unless the Administrator finds that the order was unsupported by the record as a whole; based on a mistake of law; or that new evidence, not available at the hearing, is available. Appeals that fail to allege and provide supporting basis for one of these grounds of appeal will be summarily dismissed. If the Administrator finds that the order was unsupported, based on a mistake of law, or that new evidence is available, then the Administrator may assess or modify a civil penalty; rescind the initial demand for civil penalty; or remand the case for new or additional proceedings. In the absence of a remand, the decision of the Administrator in an appeal is a final agency action.
If the Administrator affirms the order assessing civil penalties and the respondent does not pay the civil penalty in the manner specified by the order within thirty (30) days after the Administrator's decision on appeal is issued, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General with a request that an action to collect the penalty be brought in the appropriate United States District Court pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30163(c).
In examining whether the private interest at stake requires additional procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court looks to the “degree of potential deprivation,” and the gravity of the hardship borne by an entity wrongfully deprived of a property interest.
NHTSA believes that the private interest at stake in a proceeding to assess civil penalties, while substantial for some of the entities NHTSA regulates, does not rise to the level of hardship for which the Supreme Court has required heightened procedural protections.
NHTSA does not believe that additional procedural safeguards beyond what are proposed in today's NPRM would add to the fairness and reliability of civil penalty determinations under the proposed procedures. NHTSA believes that most of the evidence regarding a person's liability for civil penalties will consist of documents such as test reports, documents submitted in compliance with 49 CFR part 579 subpart C,
NHTSA also does not believe that additional procedures for conducting administrative discovery before the hearing would increase the reliability or fairness of a hearing to determine liability for civil penalties.
Finally, the procedures for determining civil penalties proposed in today's NPRM will advance the government's interest in increasing the administrative efficiency of the resolution of civil penalty cases. The proposed procedures will also serve society's interests by allowing NHTSA to more efficiently and effectively enforce the Safety Act and regulations prescribed thereunder by allowing the Agency to assess civil penalties without protracted proceedings. Fair, timely, and efficient imposition of civil penalties on persons who violate the statutes administered by NHTSA and regulations prescribed thereunder should lead to greater compliance with those statutes and regulations.
Moreover, a final order on civil penalties would be a final agency action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701
For these reasons NHTSA believes that the procedures in today's NPRM would provide due process to persons alleged to have violated the statutes or regulations administered by NHTSA and regulations prescribed thereunder.
The MAP-21 legislation sets forth civil penalty factors to be considered by NHTSA in determining the amount of a civil penalty or compromise. The general provision in the amended section 30165(c) calls for consideration of the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation. The term “violation” refers to any violation addressed by 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1), (2), (3), or (4). The Secretary has the discretion to consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding a violation. The Secretary also has the discretion to consider the factors in 30165(c)(1) through (9) as appropriate.
Our proposed approach to interpreting the MAP-21 factors is
First, we propose to interpret the nature of the violation to mean the essential, fundamental character or constitution of the violation.
Second, we propose to interpret the circumstances of the violation to mean the context, facts, and conditions having bearing on the violation.
Third, we propose to interpret the extent of the violation to mean the range of inclusiveness over which the violation extends including the scope, time frame, and/or the degree of the violation.
Finally, we propose to interpret the gravity of the violation to mean the importance, significance, and/or seriousness of the violation.
The penalty factors listed in 49 U.S.C. 30165(c)(1) through (9) are discretionary factors that NHTSA may apply in making civil penalty amount determinations and determining the amount of compromise.
We propose to interpret “the nature of the defect or noncompliance,” 49 U.S.C. 30165(c)(1), to mean the essential, fundamental characteristic or constitution of the safety-related defect or noncompliance. This is consistent with the dictionary definition of “nature.”
When considering the nature of a safety-related defect or noncompliance with an FMVSS, NHTSA may examine the conditions or circumstances under which the defect or noncompliance arises, the performance problem, and actual and probable consequences of the defect or noncompliance. When considering the nature of the noncompliance with the Safety Act or a regulation promulgated thereunder, NHTSA may examine the circumstances surrounding the violation.
For example, NHTSA has a process by which a manufacturer can petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 on the basis that a noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), 49 CFR part 556. If a petition for inconsequential noncompliance is granted, then it could serve as mitigation under this factor.
When considering the nature of the noncompliance with the Safety Act or a regulation promulgated thereunder, NHTSA also may examine the circumstances surrounding the violation.
We propose to interpret the “knowledge by the . . . [respondent] of its obligations under this chapter,” 49 U.S.C. 30165(c)(2), as all knowledge, legal and factual, actual, presumed and constructive, of the respondent of its obligations under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301. We propose that if a respondent is other than an individual, including but not limited to a corporation or a partnership, then the knowledge of an employee or employees of that non-natural person be imputed to that non-natural person. We propose to interpret the knowledge of an agent as being imputed to a principal. We propose that a non-natural person, such as a corporation, with multiple employees will be charged with the knowledge of each employee, regardless of whether the employees have communicated that knowledge among each other or to a decision maker for the non-natural person.
Under this proposed interpretation of “knowledge,” delays resulting from or caused by a manufacturer's internal
We propose to interpret the “severity of the risk of injury,” 49 U.S.C. 30165(c)(3), as the gravity of exposure to potential injury, including the potential for injury or death of drivers, passengers, other motorists, pedestrians and others. The severity of the risk includes the likelihood of an injury occurring and the population group exposed.
The severity of the risk of injury may depend on the component of a motor vehicle that is defective or noncompliant with an FMVSS. For example, a defective steering component or airbag system may pose a more severe risk of injury than a defective door handle. A grant of a petition for inconsequential noncompliance could serve as a mitigation under this penalty factor.
We propose to interpret “the occurrence or absence of injury,” 49 U.S.C. 30165(c)(4), as whether injuries or deaths have occurred as a result of a defect, noncompliance, or other violation of the Safety Act or implementing regulations. NHTSA may also take into consideration allegations of death or injury.
In evaluating this factor, it is important to emphasize that the absence of deaths or injuries is not dispositive of the existence of a defect or noncompliance or a person's liability for civil penalties.
We propose to interpret “the number of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment distributed with the defect or noncompliance,” 49 U.S.C. 30165(c)(5), as referring to the total number of vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment distributed with the defect or noncompliance with an FMVSS, or the percentage of the vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment of the subject population with the defect or noncompliance with an FMVSS. That is, NHTSA may look not only at absolute numbers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment; rather it may also take into account the portion of a vehicle or equipment population with the defect, noncompliance, or other violation. NHTSA may also consider the percentage of motor vehicles that contain the defect or noncompliance with an FMVSS as a percentage of the manufacturer's total annual production of vehicles if multiple make, model and model years of motor vehicles are affected by the defect or noncompliance with an FMVSS.
Further, NHTSA may choose to make a distinction between those defective or noncompliant products distributed in commerce that consumers received, and those defective or noncompliant products distributed in commerce that consumers have not received.
We propose to interpret “actions taken by the . . . [respondent] to identify, investigate, or mitigate the condition,” 49 U.S.C. 30165(c)(6), as actions actually taken, the time frame when those actions were taken, what those actions involved and how they ameliorated or otherwise related to the condition, what remained after those actions were taken, and the speed with which the actions were taken. We propose that in assessing actions, a failure to act may also be considered.
For example, under this factor, NHTSA may consider whether the respondent has been diligent in endeavoring to meet the requirements of the Safety Act and regulations thereunder, including whether it has set up processes to facilitate timely and accurate reporting, and whether it has audited such systems. NHTSA may also consider the measures taken by the respondent to proactively bring potential issues to NHTSA's attention, including whether the respondent timely informed NHTSA of potential violations of Safety Act requirements. NHTSA may also take into account the investigative activities the respondent has undertaken relating to the scope of the issues identified by NHTSA. NHTSA may also consider whether the respondent delayed in reporting a safety-related defect or a noncompliance with an FMVSS (a person is required to file a 49 CFR part 573 report not more than five working days after a person knew or should have known of the safety-related defect or noncompliance with an FMVSS). NHTSA may also consider whether the respondent remedied the safety-related defect or noncompliance with an FMVSS in a timely manner. For instance, NHTSA may consider whether a recall remedy is adequate, whether a new safety-related defect or noncompliance with an FMVSS arose from an inadequate recall remedy, and whether the scope of a recall was adequate. NHTSA may also consider the timeliness and adequacy of the respondent's communications with owners and dealers.
NHTSA takes the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) into account prior to setting any final penalty amount.
Upon a showing by a violator that it is a small entity, NHTSA will make appropriate adjustments to the proposed penalty or settlement amount (although certain exceptions may apply).
NHTSA interprets “potential for undue adverse economic impacts,” 49 U.S.C. 30165(c)(7), as the possibility that payment of a civil penalty amount would affect the ability of the respondent to continue to operate. NHTSA may consider a respondent's ability to pay, including in installments over time, and any effect of a penalty on that person's ability to continue to do business. The ability of a business to pay a penalty is not dictated by its size. In some cases for small businesses, however, these two considerations may relate to one another. NHTSA may consider relevant financial factors such as capitalization, liquidity, solvency, and profitability to determine a small business' ability to pay a penalty. NHTSA may also consider whether the business has been deliberately undercapitalized. The burden to present sufficient evidence relating to a charged business' size and ability to pay rests on that business. More generally, in cases where the respondent claims that it is financially unable to pay the civil penalty or that the penalty would have undue adverse economic impacts, the burden of proof is on the respondent. In the case of closely-held or privately-held companies, NHTSA may provide the respondent the opportunity to submit personal financial documentation for consideration.
We propose to interpret “whether the [respondent] has been assessed civil penalties under this section during the most recent 5 years,” 49 U.S.C. 30165(c)(8), as including an assessment of civil penalties, a settlement agreement containing a penalty, or a consent order or a lawsuit involving a penalty or payment of a civil penalty in the most recent 5 years from the date of the alleged violation, regardless of whether there was any admission of a violation or of liability under 49 U.S.C. 30165.
We propose to interpret other appropriate factors as factors not specifically identified in Section 31203(a) of MAP-21 which are appropriately considered, including both aggravating and mitigating factors.
Such factors may include, but are not limited to:
a. A history of violations. NHTSA may increase penalties for repeated violations of the Safety Act or implementing regulations, or for a pattern or practice of violations.
b. An economic gain from the violation. NHTSA may consider whether the respondent benefitted economically from a violation, including a delay in complying with the Safety Act, a failure to comply with the Safety Act, or a delay or failure to comply with the regulations thereunder.
c. Effect of the respondent's conduct on the integrity of programs administered by NHTSA. The Agency's programs depend in large part on timely and accurate reporting and certification by manufacturers. Therefore, NHTSA may consider whether a person has been forthright with the Agency. NHTSA may also consider whether a person has attempted to mislead the Agency or conceal relevant information. For instance, NHTSA may consider whether a manufacturer has provided accurate and timely statements consistent with its Early Warning Reporting obligations. NHTSA may also consider whether a registered importer has provided accurate conformity packages and/or other information consistent with 49 U.S.C. 30141-30147 and the implementing regulations.
d. Responding to requests for information or remedial action. NHTSA may consider a person's failure to respond in a timely and complete fashion to requests from NHTSA for information or for remedial action. NHTSA may also consider whether the agency needed to make multiple requests to receive requested information.
MAP-21 increased the maximum penalties under the Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1), (3) to $35,000,000. MAP-21 31203(a), 126 Stat. 758. It also increased the penalties and damages for odometer fraud. MAP-21 31206, 126 Stat. 761. MAP-21 also established civil penalties for violations of corporate responsibility provisions in 49 U.S.C. 30166 of $5,000 per day and a maximum penalty of $1,000,000. MAP-21 31304(b), 126 Stat. 764. These new penalties and increased penalties and damages are all currently in effect. NHTSA intends to amend its penalty regulation, 49 CFR 578.6, to conform it to MAP-21 amendments.
Where changes to provisions, penalties and damages are made by statute, NHTSA may amend its penalty regulation, 49 CFR 578.6, without notice and comment, effective the date of the statutory amendment.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. This action would establish procedures for NHTSA to follow when assessing civil penalties and state how NHTSA would apply the civil penalty factors in 49 U.S.C. 30165. Because this rulemaking only seeks to explain and streamline the process by which the agency determines and resolves civil penalties and does not change the number of entities subject to civil penalties or the amount of civil penalties,
We have also considered the impacts of this notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following provides the factual basis for this certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The amendments almost entirely affect manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
SBA uses size standards based on the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”), Subsector 336—Transportation Equipment Manufacturing, which provides a small business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer for automobile manufacturing businesses. Other motor vehicle-related industries have lower size requirements that range between 100 and 750 employees.
For example, according to the SBA coding system, businesses that manufacture truck trailers, travel trailers/campers, and vehicular lighting equipment, qualify as small businesses if they employ 500 or fewer employees. Many small businesses are subject to the penalty provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30165 and therefore may be affected by the procedures for assessing civil penalties and the civil penalty factors in this NPRM. The impacts of this rulemaking on small businesses are minimal, as NHTSA will continue to consider the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
This NPRM would not materially affect our civil penalty policy toward small businesses. Because NHTSA will continue to consider SBREFA and consider the business' size including the potential that a civil penalty would have undue adverse economic impacts on a small business before assessing a civil penalty, the impacts of this rulemaking on small businesses are minimal.
Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This NPRM would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
This proposed rule generally would apply to private motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers (including importers), entities that sell motor vehicles and equipment and motor vehicle repair businesses. Thus, Executive Order 13132 is not implicated and consultation with State and local officials is not required.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. Because this rulemaking would not have a $100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows: This proposed rule would establish procedures for NHTSA to follow in assessing civil penalties pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30165 under delegation from the Secretary of Transportation. The proposed rule clearly identifies the section of the Safety Act or regulation thereunder that, if violated, would subject a person to a demand for civil penalties pursuant to the procedures in this NPRM. This proposed rule also lists the mandatory and discretionary factors for NHTSA to consider when assessing civil penalties. The rule would not have retroactive effect.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, we state that there are no requirements for information collection associated with this rulemaking action.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil and criminal penalties, Civil penalty factors, Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 578 as follows:
Pub. L. 101-410, Pub. L. 104-134, Pub. L. 112-141, 49 U.S.C. 322, 30165, 30170, 30505, 32308, 32309, 32507, 32709, 32710, 32902, 32912, and 33115 as amended; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.95.
This part specifies the civil penalties for violations of statutes and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), as adjusted for inflation. It also sets forth the procedures NHTSA must follow in assessing civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301. This part also sets forth NHTSA's interpretation of the civil penalty factors listed in 49 U.S.C. 30165(c). In addition, this part sets forth the requirements regarding the reasonable time and the manner of correction for a person seeking safe harbor protection from criminal liability under 49 U.S.C. 30170(a).
One purpose of this part is to effectuate the remedial impact of civil penalties and to foster compliance with the law by specifying the civil penalties for statutory and regulatory violations, as adjusted for inflation. Another purpose of this part is to set forth the procedures for assessing civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301. A third purpose of this part is to set forth NHTSA's interpretation of the civil penalty factors listed in 49 U.S.C. 30165(c). A fourth purpose of this part is to set forth the requirements regarding the reasonable time and the manner of correction for a person seeking safe harbor protection from criminal liability under 49 U.S.C. 30170(a).
This part applies to civil penalties for violations of chapters 301, 305, 323, 325, 327, 329, and 331 of title 49 of the United States Code or a regulation prescribed thereunder. This part applies to civil penalty factors under section 30165(c) of title 49 of the United States Code. This part also applies to the criminal penalty safe harbor provision of section 30170 of title 49 of the United States Code.
(a)
(3)
(4)
(f)
(2) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. chapter 327 or a regulation prescribed or order issued thereunder, with intent to defraud, is liable for three times the actual damages or $10,000, whichever is greater.
(a) NHTSA, through the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement, begins a civil penalty proceeding by serving a notice of initial demand for civil penalties on a person (
(b) A notice of initial demand for civil penalties issued under this section includes:
(1) A statement of the provision(s) which the respondent is alleged to have violated as of the date of the initial demand for civil penalties;
(2) A statement of the factual allegations upon which the proposed civil penalty is being sought;
(3) Notice of the maximum amount of civil penalty for which the respondent may be liable at the time of the notice for the violations alleged;
(4) Notice of the amount of the civil penalty proposed to be assessed;
(5) A description of the manner in which the respondent should make payment of any money to the United States;
(6) A statement of the respondent's right to present written explanations, information or any materials in answer to the charges or in mitigation of the penalty;
(7) A statement of the respondent's right to request a hearing and the procedures for requesting a hearing;
(8) A statement that failure to pay the amount of the civil penalty, to elect to provide an informal response, or to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of the initial demand authorizes the NHTSA Chief Counsel, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the initial demand for civil penalties and to assess an appropriate civil penalty; and
(9) Documents relied on by the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement to establish that the person is liable for civil penalties or to
(c) NHTSA may amend the initial demand for civil penalties at any time prior to the entry of an order assessing a civil penalty including by amending the amount of civil penalties demanded. If the amendment contains any new material allegation of fact, the respondent is given an opportunity to respond. In an amended notice, NHTSA may change the proposed amount of civil penalty up to and including the maximum penalty amount for each violation, to and including the maximum penalty amount for a related series of violations.
(d) An initial demand for civil penalty, reply, or order issued by NHTSA under this section or §§ 578.8, 578.9, 578.10, and 578.11 may be delivered to the party by:
(1) Mailing to the party (certified mail is not required);
(2) Hand delivery;
(3) Use of an overnight or express courier service; or
(4) Facsimile transmission or electronic mail to the party or an agent or employee of the party.
(e) Service of an initial demand for civil penalty or order by a person's duly authorized representative (including, but not limited to, a person's agent for accepting service designated pursuant to 49 CFR part 551) constitutes service upon that person.
(f) Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date on which the initial demand for civil penalties is issued under this section, the respondent must:
(1) Pay the amount of civil penalty proposed and thereby close the case;
(2) Make an informal response as provided in § 578.9; or
(3) Request a hearing as provided in § 578.10.
(a) Failure of the respondent to reply by taking one of the three actions described in § 578.7(f) within the period provided constitutes a waiver of his or her right to appear and contest the allegations and authorizes the Agency's Chief Counsel, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the initial demand for civil penalties and to assess an appropriate civil penalty. This decision by the Chief Counsel will constitute final agency action. No appeal to the Administrator is permitted.
(b) If respondent elects to request a conference with the Chief Counsel and fails to attend the conference without good cause shown, the Chief Counsel may, without further notice to the respondent, find the facts to be as alleged in the initial demand for civil penalties and assess an appropriate civil penalty. This decision by the Chief Counsel will constitute final agency action. No appeal to the Administrator is permitted.
(c) If the respondent elects to request a hearing and is granted an in-person hearing, failure of the respondent to attend the hearing without good cause shown authorizes the Hearing Officer, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the initial demand for civil penalties and assess an appropriate civil penalty. This decision by the Hearing Officer will constitute final agency action. No appeal to the Administrator is permitted.
(a) If a respondent elects to make an informal response to an initial demand for civil penalties, the respondent shall submit to the Chief Counsel and to the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement in writing any arguments, views or supporting documentation that dispute or mitigate that person's liability for, or the amount of, civil penalties to be imposed within 30 calendar days of the date on which the initial demand for civil penalties is issued. The informal response shall be submitted via hand delivery, use of an overnight or express courier service, facsimile or electronic mail. The respondent may include in his or her informal written response a request for a conference. Upon receipt of such a request, the Chief Counsel will arrange for a conference as soon as practicable at a time of mutual convenience. Unless otherwise specified by the Chief Counsel, the conference will take place at the Department's headquarters. Respondent may also request to conduct the conference by telephone if traveling to the Department's headquarters would be unduly burdensome.
(b) Written explanations, information or materials submitted by the respondent and relevant information presented during any conference held under this section are considered by the Chief Counsel in reviewing the notice of initial demand for civil penalties and determining the fact of violation and the amount of any penalty to be assessed.
(c) The Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement is permitted to provide rebuttal information to the Chief Counsel replying to the information submitted by the respondent.
(d) After consideration of the submissions in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, and any relevant information presented at a conference, the Chief Counsel may dismiss the initial demand for civil penalties in whole or in part. If the Chief Counsel does not dismiss the initial demand in its entirety, the Chief Counsel may issue an order assessing a civil penalty.
(e) The NHTSA Chief Counsel will assess civil penalties under this section only after considering the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation. The determination may consider the nature of the defect or noncompliance; knowledge by the respondent of its obligations under this chapter; the severity of the risk of injury posed by the defect or noncompliance; the occurrence or absence or injury; the number of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment distributed with the defect or noncompliance; actions taken by the respondent to identify, investigate, or mitigate the condition; the appropriateness of such penalty in relation to the size of the business of the respondent, including the potential for undue adverse economic impacts; and other relevant and appropriate factors and information.
(f) An order by the Chief Counsel assessing civil penalties exceeding $1,000,000 becomes a final decision 20 calendar days after it is issued unless the respondent files an appeal under § 578.11 within the 20 day period. An order by the Chief Counsel assessing civil penalties of $1,000,000 or less is a final decision upon issuance.
(a) A respondent or counsel for a respondent, responding to an initial demand for civil penalties by requesting a hearing must provide with the request for hearing two complete copies (via hand delivery, use of an overnight or express courier service, facsimile or electronic mail) containing a detailed statement of factual and legal issues in dispute and all statements and documents supporting the respondent's case within 30 calendar days of the date on which the initial demand for civil penalties is issued. If the respondent wishes to request an in-person hearing and the opportunity to present witness testimony, the respondent must also provide with the request for a hearing a statement of the factual and/or legal issues that an in-person hearing is necessary to resolve, a statement containing the names of individuals whom the respondent wishes to call as witnesses at the hearing, a description
(b) When a hearing is requested and scheduled under this section, a Hearing Officer designated by the Chief Counsel convenes and presides over the hearing. The Hearing Officer is solely responsible for the case referred to him or her. The Hearing Officer shall have no other responsibility, direct or supervisory, for the investigation of the case referred for the assessment of civil penalties and must have no prior connection with the case. The Agency will be represented in the hearing by an attorney designated by the Chief Counsel.
(c) The hearing will be conducted by written submission unless an in-person hearing is requested and the Hearing Officer determines that an in-person hearing is necessary to resolve factual or legal issues presented in the case. In a hearing conducted by written submission, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement will submit a reply responding to the statement of factual and legal issues in dispute and the statements and documents provided with the respondent's request for a hearing submitted under paragraph (a) of this section. In a hearing by written submission, the Hearing Officer's decision will be based on the initial demand for civil penalties and all attached documents, the respondent's request for a hearing submitted under paragraph (a) of this section and all attached documents and statements, and the reply to the respondent's request for a hearing (including any documents) submitted under this paragraph. All of the materials described in this subsection are automatically part of the administrative record.
(d) If the Hearing Officer determines that an in-person hearing is necessary to resolve factual and/or legal issues present in the case, the Hearing Officer will notify the respondent and NHTSA of his or her decision in writing and schedule an in-person hearing.
(e) In order to regulate the course of a hearing, the Hearing Officer may:
(1) Direct or arrange for the submission of additional materials for the administrative record in written form;
(2) Receive testimony from witnesses during an in-person hearing;
(3) Convene, recess, reconvene, and adjourn and otherwise regulate the course of the in-person hearing; and
(4) Take administrative notice of matters that are not subject to a bona fide dispute and are commonly known in the community or are ascertainable from readily available sources of known accuracy. Prior to taking notice of a matter, the Hearing Officer shall give NHTSA and the respondent an opportunity to show why notice should not be taken. In any case in which notice is taken, the Hearing Officer shall place a written statement of the matters as to which notice was taken in the record, with the basis for such notice, including a statement that the parties consented to the notice being taken or a summary of each party's objections.
(f) In considering the admission of evidence, the Hearing Officer is not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence. In evaluating the evidence presented, the Hearing Officer must give due consideration to the reliability and relevance of each item of evidence.
(g) If, in response to a request for an in-person hearing, the Hearing Officer determines that an in-person hearing is necessary, the respondent may appear and be heard on his or her own behalf or through counsel of his or her choice. The respondent or his or her counsel may offer relevant information which he or she believes should be considered in defense of the allegations or which may bear on the penalty proposed to be assessed. The respondent may also call witnesses at the in-person hearing, if permitted by the Hearing Officer. A respondent represented by counsel bears all of its own attorneys' fees and costs. If a respondent wishes to present testimony through a personal appearance, the respondent is responsible for any costs associated with such appearance. The Hearing Officer may, at his or her discretion, accept a stipulation, declaration, or affidavit in lieu of testimony.
(h) If, in response to a request for an in-person hearing, the Hearing Officer determines that an in-person hearing is necessary, NHTSA may supplement the record with information prior to the in-person hearing. A copy of such information will be provided to the respondent no later than 3 days before the hearing. NHTSA may also call witnesses at the in-person hearing, if permitted by the Hearing Officer. NHTSA will provide to the respondent a list of witnesses that it expects to call at the in-person hearing, a description of the witnesses' expected testimony, and the factual basis for the expected testimony no later than three days prior to the in-person hearing. The Hearing Officer may, at his or her discretion, accept a stipulation, declaration, or affidavit in lieu of testimony.
(i) If, in response to a request for an in-person hearing, the Hearing Officer determines that an in-person hearing is necessary, the Hearing Officer may allow for cross examination of witnesses.
(j) A verbatim transcript of any in-person hearing will not normally be prepared. A respondent may, solely at its own expense, cause a verbatim transcript to be made. If a verbatim transcript is made, the respondent shall submit two copies to the Hearing Officer not later than 15 days after the in-person hearing. The Hearing Officer shall include such transcript in the record. A respondent who wishes a verbatim transcript of the in-person hearing to be made must notify the Hearing Officer and the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement in advance of the hearing.
(k) The administrative record of an in-person hearing shall contain the notice of initial demand for civil penalties and any supporting documentation described in § 578.7; any timely documentation submitted by the respondent; any further documentation submitted by the Agency or presented at an in-person hearing; any additional materials presented at an in-person hearing; the transcript of the hearing (if any); and any other materials that the Hearing Officer determines are relevant.
(l) During an in-person hearing, NHTSA makes the first presentation of evidence. At the close of NHTSA's presentation of evidence, the respondent will have the right to respond to and rebut evidence and argument presented by NHTSA. The respondent or his or her counsel may offer relevant information including testimony (if permitted by the Hearing Officer) regarding the respondent's liability for civil penalties and the application of the penalty factors. At the close of the respondent's presentation of evidence, the Hearing Officer may allow the presentation of rebuttal evidence by NHTSA. The Hearing Officer, in his or her discretion, may allow the respondent to reply to any such rebuttal evidence submitted. NHTSA has the burden at the hearing of establishing a violation charged in § 578.7 giving rise to liability for a civil penalty. A respondent challenging the amount of a proposed civil penalty will have the burden to establish mitigating circumstances. After the evidence in the case has been presented, NHTSA and the respondent may present arguments on the issues in the case. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be made
(m) A Hearing Officer's decision and order assessing civil penalties exceeding $1,000,000 becomes a final order 20 calendar days after it is issued unless the respondent files an appeal within the 20 day period to the Administrator under § 578.11. A Hearing Officer's decision and order assessing civil penalties of $1,000,000 or less is a final order upon issuance.
(n) The Hearing Officer will assess civil penalties under this section only after considering the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation. The determination may consider the nature of the defect or noncompliance; knowledge by the respondent of its obligations under this chapter; the severity of the risk of injury; the occurrence or absence or injury; the number of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment distributed with the defect or noncompliance; actions taken by the respondent to identify, investigate, or mitigate the condition; the appropriateness of such penalty in relation to the size of the business of the respondent, including the potential for undue adverse economic impacts; and other relevant and appropriate factors and information.
(a) A respondent aggrieved by an order issued by the Chief Counsel or Hearing Officer assessing a civil penalty of more than $1,000,000 may file an appeal with the Administrator. The appeal must be filed within twenty (20) calendar days of date on which the order was issued and state the grounds for appeal and the factual or legal basis supporting the appeal. If no appeal is filed within 20 days of the date on which the order was issued, the order by the Chief Counsel or the Hearing Officer shall become a final agency order.
(b) The Administrator will affirm the decision unless the Administrator finds that the decision was unsupported by the record as a whole; based on a mistake of law; or that new evidence, not available at the hearing, is available. Absent any of these bases, the appeal will be summarily dismissed.
(c) If the Administrator finds that the decision was unsupported, in whole or in part; based on a mistake of law; or that new evidence is available, then the Administrator may: Assess or modify a civil penalty; rescind the initial demand for civil penalties; or remand the case back for new or additional proceedings.
(d) In the absence of a remand, the decision of the Administrator in an appeal is a final agency action.
(a) Payment of a civil penalty shall be made by check, postal money order, or electronic transfer of funds, as provided in instructions by the Agency.
(b) Failure by the respondent to submit in writing his/her acceptance of the terms of an order directing payment of a civil penalty and to remit the civil penalty to NHTSA within 30 days after an agency decision becomes final, may result in the institution of an action in an appropriate United States District Court to collect the civil penalty.
(a) Any party to the underlying proceeding who is adversely affected by a final order issued under this part may petition for review of the order in the appropriate United States district court.
(b) Judicial review will be based on whether the final order was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. No objection that has not been raised before the Agency will be considered by the court, unless reasonable grounds existed for failure to do so.
(c) The commencement of proceedings under this section will not, unless ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the final order the Agency.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(1)
(i) “Defect” is as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(2). “Noncompliance” under this factor includes a noncompliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”), as well as other violations subject to penalties under 49 U.S.C. 30165.
(ii) When considering the nature of a safety-related defect or noncompliance with an FMVSS, NHTSA may examine the conditions or circumstances under which the defect or noncompliance arises, the performance problem, and actual and probable consequences of the defect or noncompliance. When considering the nature of the noncompliance with the Safety Act or a regulation promulgated thereunder, NHTSA may also examine the circumstances surrounding the violation.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 21, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Forestry Research Advisory Council (FRAC) will meet in Washington, DC. The Council is required by Section 1441 of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Additional information concerning FRAC, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the FRAC's Web site at:
The meeting will be held on the following dates and time:
• Tuesday, October 20, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PDT
• Wednesday, October 21, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PDT
All FRAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held in the Roosevelt Conference Room, Yates Building, USDA Forest Service—Washington Office, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20250. Written comments may be submitted as described under
W. Stephen Hart, Designated Federal Official, Forestry Research Advisory Council, Research and Development, USDA Forest Service, by phone at 202-205-0844, or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.,
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Discuss current and emerging forestry and natural resources research issues;
2. Provide a presentation and discussion on budget outlooks and program priorities of the Forest Service Research and Development and USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, including the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program; and
3. Discuss anticipated matters that may include USDA engagement in natural resources-related STEM research and education, partnerships with other agencies, indisciplinary research, research in urban forestry, wood products development, and landscape-scale forest management.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by October 14, 2015, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to W. Stephen Hart, Designated Federal Official, Forestry Research Advisory Council, Research and Development, USDA Forest Service, Mail Stop 1120, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20250-1120, or by fascimile at 202-401-1189, or by email at
In notice document 2015-23236 appearing on pages 55590-55591 in the issue of Wednesday, September 16, 2015 make the following correction:
On page 55590, in the third column, under the
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).
Schedule 1 notification and report: Under Part VI of the CWC Verification Annex, the United States is required to notify the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the international organization created to implement the CWC, at least 30 days before any transfer (export/import) of Schedule 1 chemicals to another State Party. The United States is also required to submit annual reports to the OPCW on all transfers of Schedule 1 Chemicals.
End-Use Certificates: Under Part VIII of the CWC Verification Annex, the United States is required to obtain End-Use Certificates for transfers of Schedule 3 chemicals to Non-States Parties to ensure the transferred chemicals are only used for the purposes not prohibited under the Convention.
This information collection request may be viewed at
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.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the City of Mobile, grantee of FTZ 82, requesting subzone status for the facility of Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC (Outokumpu), located in Calvert, Alabama. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on September 10, 2015.
The proposed subzone (1,998 acres) is located at 1 ThyssenKrupp Drive in Calvert (Mobile County). Production authority has already been approved for the facility (Doc. B-28-2015, 80 FR 51535, 8/25/2015). The Outokompu facility is currently designated as Subzone 82I with authority expiring on December 20, 2015.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 2, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 16, 2015.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
On May 15, 2015, the Clinton County Area Development Corporation, grantee of FTZ 54, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Swarovski Lighting, Ltd., within FTZ 54, in Plattsburgh, New York.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
CNH Industrial America, LLC (CNH) submitted a notification of proposed
A separate application for subzone designation at the CNH facilities will be submitted and will be processed under Section 400.31 of the FTZ Board's regulations. The facilities are used for the production of agricultural equipment, subassemblies and attachments. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt CNH from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status inputs noted below, CNH would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Sprayers for agricultural chemical or water application; floaters for agricultural chemical or water application; flexair applicators (attachments for floaters); cotton harvesters; liquid applicators (attachments for tractors); cotton drums (attachments for cotton harvesters); sprayer axle castings (subassemblies for sprayers); and, pull-type sprayers (attachments for tractors) (duty rates are free or 2.5%). Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Articles of plastic (hoses, pipes and tubes with fittings; j-flex/thermoplastic/wire reinforced tubes, pipes and fittings; caution decals; caps; steering wheel knobs; thrust washers; air ducts; plugs; clamps and seals); silicon hoses and hose assemblies; articles of rubber (seals; o-rings; gaskets; elbows; reinforced hoses and hose assemblies; reinforced hoses with or without fittings; hydraulic hoses; transmission belts; vulcanized belts; v-belts; drive belts; belt assemblies; drive belt assemblies; buffers; floor mats; liners; sealing washers; shock absorbers; insulators; and blocks); coated paperboard gaskets; paper mat protectors; training manuals; drawings; schematics; catalogs; diamond braid polyester rope with acrylic core for sprayers; powder coat anti-skid mats and strips for steps; carbon and graphite exhaust gaskets; glass for cabs; windshield glass; mirrors and mirror assemblies; cold-rolled iron/steel hollow tubes; galvanized steel tubes; stainless steel tubes; alloy steel cold-rolled tubes; iron/non-alloy steel fittings, elbows and stems; steel/zinc-plated steel hydraulic connectors; iron/non-alloy steel fittings, o-rings and connectors; zinc-plated steel connector tees; copper/zinc-plated steel/galvanized steel cables; cable assemblies; metal ropes; wire ropes; iron/steel chains, chain assemblies and links; zinc-plated steel chains; safety chains; zinc-plated steel chain kits and chain assemblies; zinc-plated steel link and link assemblies; articles of steel (screws; bolts; pins; fasteners; carriage bolts; u-bolts; steering column screws; weld nuts; stud ball pins; washers; rivets; spring clips, circle pins; hinges; hitch pins; rod assemblies; springs; brackets; clamps; retaining straps; collars and button-plugs); tinned copper ground straps; ground cables; aluminum/copper/steel rivets and springs; hex wrench sets; hammers; gathering chain tool assemblies; latches; locks and lock assemblies; door handles with locks; ignition keys; hinges; gas struts; angles; brackets; supports; mounts; dampers; plugs; radiator caps; covers; dust caps; decals; name plates; identity plates; emblems; 6-cylinder engines for sprayers and floaters; propulsion engines for sprayers and floaters for agricultural use; air intake tubes; hydraulic cylinders; hydraulic motors; pneumatic engine pistons; fuel injection pumps for engines; master cylinders; hydraulic pumps; pumps ; pump controls; fans; fan assemblies; blowers; blower assemblies; air compressors; fan couplings; heater cores; condensers; condenser assemblies; water filters; water screens; water strainers; fuel filters; hydraulic filters; filter receiver dryers; thermostats; air filters; air cleaners and assemblies; catalytic converters; air cleaner housing assemblies; sprayer nozzles; jacks; lift cylinders; counterweights; mufflers; valve plates; supporting brackets; buckets; bucket attachments; channels; wrist rest assemblies; frames with tracks; shovel brackets; baffles; shovel discs; steering arms; rear axles; drum drive assemblies; drums; drum assemblies; air ducts; headers; pulley housings; link assemblies; hubs; grain pans; accumulators; commutator brushes and straps; wiper brushes; fuel and water conversion kits; wiper blades and assemblies; hydraulic valves; copper/iron/steel non-returnable check valves; poppet valves; control valves; drain cocks and assemblies; shut-off valves; fitting kits; solenoid valves; valve covers; valve manifolds; pistons; connecting and coupling blocks; cylinder caps; cartridges; control blocks; pistons; hydraulic control valves; ball bearings; bearing sets and assemblies; bushings; cup bearings; thrust washers; tapered bearings and assemblies; roller bearings; cone bearings; shims; spacers; shafts; bearing housings; bearing carriers; bearing supports; gearbox assemblies; gears; gear sets; pulleys; idlers; belt tensioners; clutches; dampers; gaskets; engine gaskets and kits; seal kits; oil seals; seal repair kits; taper fasteners; ballast assemblies; wiper motors; starter motors; actuators; window adjustment motors; instrument and control motors; motor kits; DC converters; magnets; magnetic rings; solenoids; coils; wet and dry batteries; starter motors; alternators; head/rear/work lamps; visual signaling equipment; alarms; horns; buzzers; wiper blades; heaters; heater blocks; speakers; radars; true ground sensors; radios; radio parts; monitors; radio antennas; beacon lights; electric throttle assemblies; potentiometers; sensors; fuses; electrical timers; ignition switches; switch assemblies; unloading switches; rectifiers; programmable controllers; instrument control assemblies; shifter circuit kits; electrical connectors; wire connectors; printed circuit boards; housing contacts; lamps; bulbs; pressure and humidity sensors; cables; ground cables; electrical wires; electrical cable; wire harnesses; antenna cables; sprayer cabs; monitor tubes, housings, instrument panels, hoods, covers, and handles for sprayer and floater cabs; brake pipes; gearbox covers; axles, hubs, axle inserts, wheels, shock absorbers, arms, housings, castings, radiators, exhaust system pipes, mufflers, clutches, steering columns, bracket assemblies, booms, casting supports, frames, handrails, steering cylinder mounts and levers for tractor/floater/sprayer attachments; temperature sensors; fuel sender units; flow meters; instrument clusters; tachometers; instrument panels; seats; and armrests (duty rates range from duty-free to 9.9%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 2, 2015.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of appeal.
This announcement provides public notice that Louis Charles Rose (Appellant) has filed an administrative appeal under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451
Written comments and requests for public hearing will be considered if received no later than October 21, 2015.
You may submit written comments or requests for a public hearing to NOAA, Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services, Attn. Gladys Miles, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or via email to
On August 20, 2015, Louis Charles Rose filed notice of an appeal with the Secretary pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451
Under the CZMA, the Secretary may override the Board's objection on grounds that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA or otherwise necessary in the interest of national security. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA,” the Secretary must find that: (1) The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner; (2) the adverse effects of the proposed activity do not outweigh its contribution to the national interest, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and (3) no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with enforceable policies of the applicable coastal management program. 15 CFR 930.121. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “necessary in the interest of national security,” the Secretary must find that a national defense or other national security interest would be significantly impaired if the activity is not permitted to go forward as proposed. 15 CFR 930.122.
Pursuant to Department of Commerce regulations, the public and interested federal agencies may submit written comments on this appeal. All comments received will be made part of the public record. All personal identifying information (
Pursuant to Department of Commerce regulations, the Secretary may hold a public hearing on this appeal, either in response to a written request for a public hearing or upon his/her own initiative. A written request for a public hearing must include an explanation why you believe a public hearing would be beneficial and aid the decision-maker. If a hearing is held, advance notice of the time, date, and location will be published in the
Materials and related documents comprising the appeal record will be publicly available during business hours, at the NOAA, Office of the General Counsel in the location specified in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 46 pre-workshop webinar for Caribbean Data-limited Species.
The SEDAR 46 assessment of Caribbean Data-limited Species will consist of one in-person workshop and a series of webinars. See
The SEDAR 46 pre-Workshop webinar will be held October 6, 2015, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern Time.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-
The items of discussion in the Assessment Process webinars are as follows:
Panelists will present summary data, and discuss data needs and treatments.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Coral Reef Conservation Program, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Public Meeting, Notice of Public Comment.
Notice is hereby given of a public meeting of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF). The meeting will be held in Fajardo, Puerto Rico at El Conquistador Resort, 1000 El Conquistador Avenue, Fajardo, Puerto Rico 00738. The meeting provides a forum for coordinated planning and action among federal agencies, state and territorial governments, and nongovernmental partners. The meeting will be held Thursday, October 29, 2015. Additional workshops, evening events, and field trips will be on either side of the meeting on Tuesday, October 27, Wednesday, October 28, Friday, October 30, and Saturday, October 31. Registration is requested for all events associated with the meeting.
This meeting has time allotted for public comment. All public comments must be submitted in written format. A written summary of the meeting will be posted on the USCRTF Web site within two months of occurrence. For information about the meeting, registering and submitting public comments, go to
Commenters may address the meeting, the role of the USCRTF, or general coral reef conservation issues. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment, including personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request that the USCRTF withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Established by Presidential Executive Order 13089 in 1998, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force mission is to lead, coordinate and strengthen U.S. government actions to better preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. Co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and Interior, Task Force members include leaders of 12 federal agencies, seven U.S. states and territories and three freely associated states.
Shannon Simpson, NOAA USCRTF Steering Committee Point of Contact, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, 1305 East-West Highway, N/OCRM, Silver Spring, MD 20910 at 303-497-6246 or Cheryl Fossani, USCRTF Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior, MS-3530-MIB, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240 at (202) 208-5004 or visit the USCRTF Web site at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a three-day meeting to consider actions affecting Mid-Atlantic fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, October 6-8, 2015, starting at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 8 a.m. on Wednesday, and 9 a.m. on Thursday.
The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree Philadelphia Center City, 237 S. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107; telephone: (215) 893-1600.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Council will hold a Habitat Workshop on Tuesday to discuss potential strategies to more fully integrate habitat into the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management process.
During the afternoon session, the Council will continue with the Habitat Workshop. The Blueline Tilefish Amendment will be discussed to approve a range of alternatives. The Council will review the Scientific and Statistical Committee's (SSC) Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) recommendations, as well as the Monitoring Committee and Advisory Panel recommendations and recommend 2016-18 Spiny Dogfish Specifications and associated management measures. The Council will then receive an update on recent activities from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
The Executive Committee will meet to review the 2015 Implementation Plan and to discuss and review the 2016 Implementation Plan. The Council will then review and approve the 2016-20 Five-Year Comprehensive Research Priority Plan. The Council will also identify research priorities for near-term cooperative research projects for the Council Cooperative Research Plan.
During the afternoon session, the Council will review the SSC report regarding data limited methods for recommending black sea bass ABC and revise the 2016-17 black sea bass catch limit recommendations, if appropriate. The New England Fishery Management Council's Framework for Surfclams and Ocean Quahogs, which includes clam dredge exemption areas on Georges Bank and Nantucket shoals areas, will be presented. The Council will then receive a summary of scoping comments and identify the next steps regarding Unmanaged Forage followed by an update on the progress for the summer flounder sex-specific model.
The Council will identify preferred alternatives for public hearings for the Industry Funded Observer Amendment followed by a review of the NOAA Draft Policy Statement on Ecosystem Based Fishery Management. The day will conclude with brief reports from the National Marine Fisheries Service's Greater Atlantic Regional Office and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA's Office of General Counsel and Office of Law Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Council's liaisons, and the Council's Executive Director. The Council will also receive a Science Report, Executive and SSC Committee reports and discuss any continuing and/or new business.
Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed toM. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of membership of the NOAA Performance Review Board.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), NOAA announces the appointment of members who will serve on the NOAA Performance Review Board (PRB). The NOAA PRB is responsible for reviewing performance appraisals and ratings of Senior Executive Service (SES), Senior Level (SL), and Scientific and Professional (ST) members and making written recommendations to the appointing authority on retention and compensation matters, including performance-based pay adjustments, awarding of bonuses, and reviewing recommendations for potential Presidential Rank Award nominees. The appointment of members to the NOAA PRB will be for a period of two (2) years.
Christine Nalli, Director, Executive Resources Division, Workforce Management Office, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (301) 713-6301.
The names and positions of the members for the 2015 NOAA PRB are set forth below:
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the announcement of a public meeting of the Credit Union Advisory Council (CUAC or Council) of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau).
The meeting date is Thursday, October 8, 2015, 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
The meeting location is Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Crystal Dully, Consumer Advisory Board & Councils, External Affairs, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002; telephone: 202-435-9588;
Section 2 of the CUAC Charter provides: “Pursuant to the executive and administrative powers conferred on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) by Section 1012 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the Director established the Credit Union Advisory Council to consult with the Bureau in the exercise of its functions under the federal consumer financial laws as they pertain to credit unions with total assets of $10 billion or less.”
Section 3 of the CUAC Charter states: “a) The CFPB supervises depository institutions and credit unions with total assets of more than $10 billion and their respective affiliates, but other than the limited authority conferred by § 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB does not have supervisory authority regarding credit unions and depository institutions with total assets of $10 billion or less. As a result, the CFPB does not have regular contact with these institutions, and it would therefore be beneficial to create a mechanism to ensure that their unique perspectives are shared with the Bureau. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panels provide one avenue to gather this input, but participants from credit unions must possess no more than $175 million in assets, which precludes the participation of many. b) The Advisory Council shall fill this gap by providing an interactive dialogue and exchange of ideas and experiences between credit union employees and Bureau staff. c) The Advisory Council shall advise generally on the Bureau's regulation of consumer financial products or services and other topics assigned to it by the Director. To carry out the Advisory Council's purpose, the scope of its activities shall include providing information, analysis, and recommendations to the Bureau. The output of Advisory Council meetings should serve to better inform the CFPB's policy development, rulemaking, and engagement functions.”
The Credit Union Advisory Council will discuss consumer challenges in payments.
Persons who need a reasonable accommodation to participate should contact
Individuals who wish to attend the Credit Union Advisory Council meeting must RSVP to
The Council's agenda will be made available to the public on Tuesday, September 22, 2015, via
A recording and transcript of this meeting will be available after the meeting on the CFPB's Web site
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) is waiving the statutory limitation of 10 U.S.C. 2534 for certain defense items produced in the United Kingdom (UK). United States Code, Title 10, section 2534, limits DoD procurement of certain items to sources in the national technology and industrial base. The waiver will permit procurement of enumerated items from sources in the UK, unless otherwise restricted by statute.
This waiver is effective beginning October 6, 2015 until October 4, 2016.
Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP), Contract Policy and International Contracting (CPIC), Room 5E621, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060, Attention: Ms. Patricia Foley, OUSD(AT&L), telephone (703) 693-1145.
Subsection (a) of 10 U.S.C. 2534 provides that the Secretary of Defense may procure the items listed in that subsection only if the manufacturer of the item is part of the national technology and industrial base. Subsection (i) of 10 U.S.C. 2534 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to exercise the waiver authority in subsection (d), on the basis of the
DoD has had a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the UK since 1975, most recently renewed on December 17, 2014.
The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) finds that the UK does not discriminate against defense items produced in the United States to a greater degree than the United States discriminates against defense items produced in the UK, and also finds that application of the limitation in 10 U.S.C. 2534 against defense items produced in the UK would impede the reciprocal procurement of defense items under the MOU.
Under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2534, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) has determined that application of the limitation of 10 U.S.C. 2534(a) to the procurement of any defense item produced in the UK that is listed below would impede the reciprocal procurement of defense items under the MOU with the UK.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) is waiving the limitation in 10 U.S.C. 2534(a) for procurements of any defense item listed below that is produced in the UK. This waiver applies to procurements under solicitations issued during the period from October 6, 2015 to October 4, 2016. Similar waivers have been granted since 1998, most recently in 2014 (79 FR 11770, March 3, 2014).
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 21, 2015.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of availability.
DoD announces the availability of the Inventory of Contracts for Services for Fiscal Year 2014 pursuant to section 2330a of title 10, United States Code. The inventory is available to the public.
Office of the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, ATTN: OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/CPIC, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Mr. Jeff Grover may be contacted by email at
In accordance with section 2330a of title 10 United States Code, the Office of the Deputy Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Contract Policy and International Contracting (DPAP/CPIC) will make available to the public the annual inventory of contracts for services. The inventory is posted to the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Web site at:
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice.
This notice announces the membership of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB).
Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2001.
Deborah Biscieglia by telephone at (202) 694-7041 or by email at
5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review boards. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial summary rating of a senior executive's performance, the executive's response, and the higher level official's comments on the initial summary rating. In addition, the PRB will review and recommend executive performance bonuses and pay increases.
The DNFSB is a small, independent Federal agency; therefore, the members of the DNFSB SES PRB listed in this notice are drawn from the SES ranks of other agencies.
The following persons comprise a standing roster to serve as members of the DNFSB SES PRB:
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice of an altered system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of Education (Department) publishes this notice of an altered system of records entitled “Data Challenges and Appeals Solutions (DCAS) System,” which will replace the “Electronic Cohort Default Rate Appeals (eCDR Appeals)” system of records.
On October 31, 2014, the Secretary published final regulations in the
The DCAS System is the enhanced successor system to the eCDR Appeals system and will be implemented in phases to include all appeals, requests for adjustments and challenges related to institutional cohort default rates (CDRs), the GE regulations, and other student-level data initiatives. After FSA fully implements all phases of the DCAS System, FSA will retire the prior information technology system that housed the eCDR Appeals data.
In addition to the records described above, the DCAS System will contain records regarding borrowers who have applied for and received loans under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program and the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program.
The Department seeks comment on the altered system of records described in this notice, in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act.
We must receive your comments about this altered system of records on or before October 21, 2015.
The Department filed a report describing the altered system of records covered by this notice with the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on September 10, 2015. This altered system of records will become effective upon the later date of: (1) The expiration of the 40-day period for OMB review on October 21, 2015; or (2) October 21, 2015, unless the altered system of records needs to be changed as a result of public comment or OMB review.
Address all comments about this altered system of records to Nikki Harris, Operation Performance Division, Gainful Employment Staff, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street NE., Room 62A4, Washington, DC 20202-5353.
If you prefer to send comments by email, use the following address:
You must include “eCDR Appeals/DCAS” in the subject line of your electronic message.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all comments about
On request, we will supply appropriate accommodations or auxiliary aids to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under
Nikki Harris. Telephone number: (202) 377-4876. 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.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an alternative format (
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)) requires the Department to publish in the
The Privacy Act applies to a record about an individual that is maintained in a system of records from which individually identifying information is retrieved by a unique identifier associated with each individual, such as a name or Social Security number. The information about each individual is called a “record,” and the system, whether manual or computer based, is called a “system of records.”
The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish a system of records notice in the
The Department currently uses the eCDR Appeals system for data challenges, requests for adjustments, and appeals consistent with the requirements of the CDR regulations in subpart N of the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations (34 CFR part 668), which the Department promulgated to implement the CDR requirements of section 435 of the HEA. The CDR is the percentage of borrowers at an institution of higher education (institution) who enter repayment on certain FFEL Loans and/or Direct Loans during the fiscal year and default within that cohort period. Every year, the Department calculates the CDR for institutions twice a year based on a three-year cohort period. The Department calculates and releases to institutions the draft CDRs in February (
Institutions that believe that their CDR is inaccurate, or that believe they should not be subject to sanction or provisional certification based on certain mitigating circumstances, may submit a data challenge during the draft cycle or request an adjustment or appeal during the official cycle. An institution may allege that the Department used inaccurate data for specific loan records in the calculation of the institution's CDR. The appropriate data manager and the Department review and respond to each allegation. Note: Data managers are determined on the basis of the holder of the loan. For FFEL Program loans held by the lender or its guaranty agency, the guaranty agency is the data manager for the purpose of the appeal. If the Department is the holder of the FFEL Program loan, then the Department is the data manager. For Direct Loans, the Direct Loan servicer is the data manager. When the data manager and the Department agree with the allegation, the data is corrected by the data manager. If the data manager and the Department disagree with the institution's allegations (
For the most recent cohort year, 2011, over 357 institutions submitted data challenges for the three-year draft CDR. Of the 357 institutional data challenges, the submissions ranged from data challenges containing as few as one allegation to as many as 1,500 allegations per challenge.
The GE regulations establish a debt-to-earnings (D/E) rates measure to determine whether a GE program prepares students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. The D/E rates measure is based on the typical loan debt and earnings of students who previously completed the program. The Department calculates two D/E rates measure: One based on annual earnings and one based on discretionary income. The GE regulations also require institutions to disclose to current and prospective students information about the institutions' GE programs. These disclosures may include the following calculations: Median earnings, completion and withdrawal rates, repayment rate, median loan debt, and a program-level cohort default rate (pCDR). We refer to the D/E rates calculations and the calculations for purposes of the disclosure requirements as the “GE calculations.” The Department estimates that it will receive over 300,000 challenges to the data used to calculate draft D/E rates measure in the first year in which the Department calculates rates under the GE regulations. (79 FR 64993, 65004) The Department also expects to receive challenges, requests for adjustments, and appeals with respect to the other GE calculations.
The DCAS System, as an enhanced successor system to the eCDR Appeals system, will help address the rising volume of data challenges, requests for adjustments, and appeals that institutions electronically submit to FSA.
The DCAS System will: (1) Allow institutions to electronically challenge the data used in their CDRs and GE calculations; electronically request adjustments to and appeal their official CDRs and pCDRs; and electronically appeal their final D/E rates calculation; and (2) provide capability to FSA and
You may also access documents of the Department by using the article search feature at:
Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.
The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to Matthew Sessa, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid, to perform the functions and duties of the Chief Operating Officer.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid (FSA), U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes a notice of an altered system of records, to read as follows:
Data Challenges and Appeals Solutions (DCAS) System.
None.
(1) Operations Performance Division, Gainful Employment Team, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street NE., Room 62A4, Washington, DC 20202-5353.
(2) Virtual Data Center (VDC), Dell Systems, 2300 W. Plano Parkway, Plano, TX 75075-8427 (Department's Contractor).
The DCAS System contains records on all recipients under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), who receive loans, grants, or work-study. Although the DCAS System contains information about institutions associated with individuals, this system of records notice pertains only to individuals protected under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act).
The DCAS System contains records regarding: (1) Student/borrower identifier information including Social Security number and name; (2) loan information (
20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1082, 1085, 1088, 1094, 1099c.
The information contained in the records maintained in this system is used for the following purposes:
(1) To allow institutions to electronically challenge, request adjustments to, and appeal their cohort default rates (CDRs) and calculations (GE calculations) required under the Department's regulations that apply to educational programs that are required to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation (GE regulations).
(2) To allow FSA and data managers to electronically view and respond to these challenges, requests for adjustments, and appeals from institutions.
The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. The Department may make these disclosures on a case-by-case basis, or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act, under a computer matching agreement.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(i) The Department or any of its components.
(ii) Any Department employee in his or her official capacity.
(iii) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity if the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has been requested to or has agreed to provide or arrange for representation for the employee.
(iv) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity where the
(v) The United States where the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
None.
Records are maintained in a database on the Department's secure servers and in other electronic storage media.
Records are retrieved by a unique institution of higher education code number provided by the Department to participating institutions and the borrower's Social Security number.
Access to the records is limited to authorized personnel only. All physical access to the Department's site, and to the site of the Department's contractor where this system of records is maintained, is controlled and monitored by security personnel who check each individual entering the buildings for his or her employee or visitor badge.
The computer system employed by the Department and by the Department's contractor offers a high degree of resistance to tampering and circumvention. This security system limits data access to Department and contract staff on a “need to know” basis, and controls an individual user's ability to access and alter records within the system. All users of this system of records are given a unique user identification. The Department's Federal Student Aid Information Security Privacy Policy requires the enforcement of a complex password policy. In addition, users are required to change their password at least every 60 to 90 days in accordance with the Department's information technology standards. At the principal site of the Department's contractor in Plano, Texas, additional physical security measures are in place and access is monitored 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.
The records associated with an institution's challenges, requests for adjustments, or appeals are currently unscheduled pending National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) approval of a records retention schedule. Until a NARA-approved records schedule is in effect, no records will be destroyed.
Nikki Harris, Operations Performance Division, Gainful Employment Team, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street NE., Room 62A4, Washington, DC 20202-5353.
If you wish to determine whether a record exists regarding you in the system of records, contact the system manager. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
If you wish to gain access to your record in the system of records, contact the system manager at the address listed under
If you wish to contest the content of a record regarding you in the system of records, contact the system manager. Your request must meet the requirements of the regulations in 34 CFR 5b.7, including proof of identity.
Information maintained in this system of records is obtained from institutions of higher education, data managers, and other FSA systems of records, including the National Student Loan Data System (18-11-06).
None.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Campbell County Wind Farm, 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 October 5, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Passadumkeag Windpark, 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 September 21, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of PBLJ 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 September 21, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission 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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA 210(m)(3) 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 on August 28, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), Tres Palacios Gas Storage LLC (TPGS) filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking an order authorizing TPGS to provide wheeling service at market-base rates, consistent with TPGS' current market-based rate authorization applicable to all of its existing firm and interruptible storage services and interruptible wheeling services, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Goodwell Wind Project, 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 October 5, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on September 14, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a) and section 219 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824s (2012), DCR Transmission, LLC's (Petitioner) filed a petition for declaratory order (petition) requesting authorization for certain incentive rate treatments for the Delaney Colorado River transmission line project (Project). The Project consists of a new, single-circuit 500-kilovolt, alternating current overhead transmission line approximately 114 miles in length, connecting the Delaney Substation in Arizona (currently under construction by Arizona Public Service Company) to the existing Colorado River Substation in California (owned by Southern California Edison), as more fully explained in its petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on October 14, 2015.
Take notice that on August 27, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), Central New York Oil And Gas Company, L.L.C. (CNYOG) filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking an order authorizing CNYOG to provide interruptible park and loan services at market-based rates, consistent with CNYOG's current market-based rate authorization applicable to all of its existing firm and interruptible storage services and interruptible wheeling services furnished through the Stagecoach Storage Facility, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 2, 2015, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056, filed an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to abandon 3.3 miles of 30-inch diameter pipe and construct 3.85 miles of 30-inch diameter pipe all located in Wayne County, West Virginia, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to counsel for Columbia, Tony Sala, Senior Counselor, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77056; telephone: (713) 386-3743.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
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 September 11, 2015, the Commission issued an order in Docket
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL15-97-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
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 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 on September 14, 2015, Jay C. Bartlett submitted for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 825d(b), Part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45, and Order No. 664.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Data Reporting Requirements for State and Local Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs” (EPA ICR No. 1613.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0252) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 21, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0707, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Dave Sosnowski, Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4823; fax number: 734-214-4052; 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
General program effectiveness is determined by the degree to which a program misses, meets, or exceeds the emission reductions committed to in the state's approved State Implementation Plan (SIP), which, in turn, must meet or exceed the minimum emission reductions expected from the relevant performance standard, as promulgated under EPA's revisions to 40 CFR, Part 51, in response to requirements established in section 182 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Act). This information will be used by EPA to determine a program's progress toward meeting requirements under 40 CFR, Part 51, as well as to assess national trends in the area of basic and enhanced I/M programs and to provide background information in support of periodic site visits and evaluations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1745.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0154) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 21, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0278, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, mailcode 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-9037; fax number: 703-308-8686; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1938.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0505) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 21, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0075, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of request for nominations of candidates to the Environmental Financial Advisory Board.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointments to fill vacancies on the Environmental Financial Advisory Board (the Board or EFAB). The Board seeks to maintain diverse representation across all workforce sectors and geographic locations. Nominees should demonstrate experience in any of the following areas: Environmental insurance; energy efficiency; commercial banking; local utility management and finance; green infrastructure financing; sustainable community partnerships; water resiliency; water and wastewater utility financial management; public-public; public-private; and public-nonprofit partnerships. Nominees are encouraged who live and work in the pacific northwest, northeast, and mid-west parts of the United States.
EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain a diverse pool of candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups. In addition to this notice, other sources may be utilized in the solicitation of nominees. The deadline for receiving nominations is Friday, October 9, 2015. Appointments will be made by the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and will be announced in November 2015. Nominee qualifications will be assessed under the mandates of the Federal
Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than October 9, 2015.
EPA, Office of Water, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., (4102M), Washington, DC 20004.
Submit nomination materials by postal mail or electronic mail to: Pamela Scott, Membership Coordinator, Environmental Financial Advisory Board, or email
The Environmental Financial Advisory Board was chartered in 1989 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide advice and recommendations to EPA on the following issues:
• Reducing the cost of financing environmental facilities and discouraging polluting behavior;
• Creating incentives to increase private investment in the provision of environmental services and removing or reducing constraints on private involvement imposed by current regulations;
• Developing new and innovative environmental financing approaches and supporting and encouraging the use of cost-effective existing approaches;
• Identifying approaches specifically targeted to small/disadvantaged community financing;
• Increasing the capacity of state and local governments to carry out their respective environmental programs under current Federal tax laws;
• Analyzing how new technologies can be brought to market expeditiously;
• Increasing the total investment in environmental protection of public and private environmental resources to help ease the environmental financing challenge facing our nation.
The Board meets two times each calendar year (two days per meeting) at different locations within the continental United States. Board members typically contribute approximately 1-3 hours per month to the Board's work. The Board's membership services are voluntary and the Agency is unable to provide honoraria or compensation, according to FACA guidelines. However, Board members may receive travel and per diem allowances, where appropriate, and in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations for invitational travelers.
Residence in the continental United States;
Professional knowledge of, and experience with, environmental financing activities;
Senior level-experience that fills a gap in Board representation, or brings a new and relevant dimension to its deliberations;
Demonstrated ability to work in a consensus-building process with a wide range of representatives from diverse constituencies; and
Willingness to serve a two-year term as an active and contributing member, with possible re-appointment to a second term.
Nominations for membership must include a resume describing the professional and educational qualifications of the nominee as well as expertise/experience. Contact details should include full name and title, business mailing address, telephone, fax, and email address. A supporting letter of endorsement is encouraged but not required.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2029.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0520), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 21, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0087, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2437.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0673) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 21, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0102, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
EPA has also revised the respondent burden associated with compressor notifications and storage vessel annual reports. The previous ICR assumed respondents would submit initial notifications for affected centrifugal and reciprocating compressors. These sources, however, are not subject to initial notification requirements, thus we have removed them from the burden calculations. For storage vessels, the previous ICR assumed respondents would complete an individual report for each affected storage vessel. The rule, however, allows respondents to submit a single report for all affected storage vessels at their site. EPA's experience has been that respondents typically consolidate reporting activities in order to reduce the overall reporting burden. For this reason, we have revised the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1951.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0511) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 21, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0077, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1995.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0521) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 21, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0084, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (HWIR-Media) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1775.07, OMB Control No. 2050-0161) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 21, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0343, to (1) EPA, either 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.
Peggy Vyas, Mail Code: 5303P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-5477; fax number: 703-308-8433; 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
Under § 264.1(j), owners/operators of remediation waste management sites
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1954.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0457) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 21, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0076, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.
Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.
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 November 20, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Under 47 CFR 1.929(c)(1) of the Commission's rules, any increase in the composite interference contour (CIC) of a site-based licensee in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service, Rural Radiotelephone Service, or 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service is a major modification of a license that requires prior Commission approval.
However, in February 2005, the Commission adopted and released final rules which amended section 1.929(c)(1) to specify that expansion of a composite interference contour (CIC) of a site-based licensee in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service—as well as the Rural Radiotelephone Service and 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service—over water on a secondary, non-interference basis should be classified as a minor (rather than major) modification of a license. Such reclassification has eliminated the filing requirements associated with these license modifications, but requires site-based licensees to provide the geographic area licensee (on the same frequency) with the technical and engineering information necessary to evaluate the site-based licensee's operations over water.
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 November 20, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
A Data Network Identification Code (DNIC) is a unique, four-digit number designed to provide discrete identification of individual public data networks. The DNIC is intended to identify and permit automated switching of data traffic to particular networks. The FCC grants the DNICs to operators of public data networks on an international protocol. The operators of public data networks file an application for a DNIC on the Internet-based, International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). The DNIC is obtained free of charge on a one-time only basis unless there is a change in ownership or the owner chooses to relinquish the code to the FCC. The Commission's lack of an assignment of DNICs to operators of public data networks would result in technical problems that prevent the identification and automated switching of data traffic to particular networks.
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This Meeting Will Be Open To The Public.
This item was also discussed:
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202)694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
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 October 6, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
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 information collection project:
Comments on this notice must be received by November 20, 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
This is a new activity of AHRQ's Evidence-based Practice Center Program.
AHRQ's Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program develops evidence reports and technology assessments on topics relevant to clinical and other health care organization and delivery issues—specifically those that are common, expensive, and/or significant for the Medicare and Medicaid populations. For example recent reviews have focused on clinical conditions, such as “Treatment of Nonmetastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer”; health delivery topics such as “Management Strategies to Reduce Psychiatric Admissions”; and specific technologies such as “Imaging Techniques for Treatment Evaluation for Metastatic Breast Cancer.” These evidence reports include systematic reviews and technical briefs, and provide an essential foundation from which to understand what we know from existing research and what critical research gaps remain. These reports, reviews, and technology assessments are based on rigorous, comprehensive syntheses and analyses of the scientific literature on topics. EPC reports and assessments emphasize explicit and detailed documentation of methods, rationale, and assumptions. EPC reports are conducted in accordance with an established policy on financial and nonfinancial interests. These scientific syntheses may include meta-analyses and cost analyses.
The EPC Program supports AHRQ's mission by synthesizing and disseminating the available research as a “science partner” with private and public organizations in their efforts to improve the quality, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care. The EPC Program is a trusted source of rigorous, comprehensive, and unbiased evidence reviews for stakeholders. The resulting evidence reports and technology assessments are used by Federal and State agencies, private-sector professional societies, health delivery systems, providers, payers, and others committed to evidence-based health care. These end users may use EPC Program evidence reports to inform policy decisions, clinical practice guidelines, and other health care decisions.
EPC research has the following goals:
○ Use research methods to gather knowledge on the effectiveness of certain treatments for specific medical conditions, both published and unpublished, to evaluate the quality of research studies and the evidence from these studies.
○ Promote the use of evidence in health care decision making to improve health care and health.
○ Identify research gaps to inform future research investments.
The Institute of Medicine standards for quality systematic reviews include an assessment of publication bias through the identification of unpublished studies. This is an important source for bias which could affect the nature and direction of research findings. Identifying and including the results of these additional unpublished studies may provide a more complete and accurate assessment of an intervention's effect on outcomes. An important way to identify unpublished studies is through requests to medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and other intervention developers.
The proposed project involves sending a request letter to relevant medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and other intervention developers to invite them to submit unpublished studies or other scientific information to the EPC Program Web site, with one request per systematic review topic. Because research on each topic must be completed in a timely manner in order for it to be useful, the collections are never ongoing—there is one request and collection per topic. Investigators in the EPC Program will review the information and assess potential risk of bias from both published and unpublished studies and its impact on the EPC Program's findings. AHRQ believes the display of these assessments in the systematic review's evidence tables will improve the response and submission rates of industry stakeholders by informing the health care community of the impact of potential bias on the research conclusions, and for health care decision making.
This activity is being conducted by AHRQ's EPC Program through its contractor, the Scientific Resource Center (SRC), pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care and to disseminate government-funded research relevant to comparative clinical effectiveness research. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a); 42 U.S.C. 299b-37(a).
To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections will be implemented:
• Online Submission Form Instrument. This information is collected for the purposes of providing supplemental evidence and data for systematic reviews (SEADS). The online submission form (OSF) collects data from respondents on their organization name, their product's name, and whether they are providing all information on requested studies characteristic of the review in progress. This happens following receipt of a request letter from the SRC. These requests will be sent to relevant sponsors of preventative and treatment interventions (
The EPC Program, through the SRC, currently uses a
The additional use of direct requests to relevant organizations would improve the Program's ability to obtain this information. Contacting intervention sponsors for missing and potentially unidentified studies could improve the impact of research efforts and downstream dissemination efforts and could positively impact the health of individuals, burdened by poor health along with their supporting communities. Including information about response data to these requests to more accurately characterize the completeness of the evidence in the systematic reviews may also address this issue.
The proposed project does not duplicate other available sources of this
The purpose of SEADS requests is not to collect generalizable data, but to supplement the published and grey literature searches EPC investigators are conducting. Furthermore, considering the evidence and data included in responses collected from industry stakeholders, an assessment pertaining to the completeness of the evidence-base will be produced. This, AHRQ believes, will increase the value of AHRQ's research reviews to end users and potentially provide stakeholders a better understanding of how their submissions are used.
Exhibit 1 presents estimates of the reporting burden hours for the data collection efforts. Time estimates are based on pilot testing of materials and what can reasonably be requested of respondents. The number of respondents listed in “Number of respondents per SEADS request” of Exhibit 1 reflects a projected 80% response rate.
Online Submission Form: A form for submitting scientific evidence and data related to medical interventions sponsored by organizations and individuals such as pharmaceutical companies and independent researchers. The form has three required fields: The organization's name, the intervention in question, and whether the information they provide is all the information they know to exist. They may upload documents and they are also provided a data entry form if they wish to offer greater details on their studies.
An Optional Data Entry Form is available as an alternative to the Online Submission form. The time requirements for response would be same as the Online Submission Form.
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 health care 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), HHS.
Notice of Five AHRQ Subcommittee Meetings.
The subcommittees listed below are part of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee. Grant applications are to be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. Each subcommittee meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. These meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).
See below for dates of meetings:
Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 9751 Washingtonian Blvd., Gaithersburg, MD 20878.
(To obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of the meetings.)
In accordance with section 10 (a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), AHRQ announces meetings of the scientific peer review groups listed above, which are subcommittees of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committees. Each subcommittee meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). 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.
Agenda items for these meetings are subject to change as priorities dictate.
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 information collection project:
Comments on this notice must be received by November 20, 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
Patient registries have received significant attention and funding in recent years. Similar to controlled studies, patient registries represent some burden to patients (
By creating a central point of collection for information about all patient registries in the United States, the Registry of Patient Registries (RoPR) furthers AHRQ's goals by making information regarding quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health services (and patient registries in particular) more readily available, in a central location.
This research has the following goals:
(1) Maintaining and updating the RoPR database system to be compatible with ClinicalTrials.gov; meeting the following objectives:
a. Providing a searchable database of patient registries in the United States (to promote collaboration, reduce redundancy, and improve transparency);
b. Facilitating the use of common data fields and definitions in similar health conditions (to improve opportunities for sharing, comparing, and linkage) and free-text search field for highlighting information specific to an individual registry;
c. Providing a public repository of searchable summary results (including results from registries that have not yet been published in the peer-reviewed literature);
d. Offering a search tool to locate existing data that researchers can request for use in new studies; and
e. Serving as a recruitment tool for researchers and patients interested in participating in patient registries.
The RoPR is a web-based application, and does not require users to submit any type of paper form.
The RoPR collects patient registry data in two ways: users are able to enter information into the web-based system manually, or use an automated upload feature.
Information being collected in the RoPR Record is visible to the public and patient registries visiting the RoPR Web site, and is available for public use in this capacity.
The RoPR system provides email notification to registry holders informing them on an annual basis of the need to update basic statistics and contact information. It is the responsibility of the registry holder to update the information.
If a Registry Profile has not been reviewed and updated to the RoPR search site within four (4) years, it is archived.
As of August 8, 2015, the RoPR has 138 patient registries listed.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor L&M Policy Research and sub-contractor to L&M, Quintiles, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research and disseminate information on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (8).
To achieve the goals of this project, the following data collection will be implemented: Collect information from users who populate the RoPR database system, which will achieve all of the above goals.
The purpose and the use of the RoPR is to provide a readily available public resource strictly for patient registries, following the model of ClinicalTrials.gov, allowing for the increased availability and efficacy of patient registries. The information being collected in the RoPR Record is visible to the public visiting the RoPR Web site, and is readily available for public use. The RoPR is an ongoing data collection initiative.
Between July 2014 and June 2015, 59 respondents entered their RoPR record manually.
Each respondent need enter his or her new RoPR record only once. The RoPR system sends an automated reminder to any registry owner who has not updated his or her RoPR record in the past year. Approximately, 57.25% of RoPR records were estimated to have been eligible for updates between July 2014 and June 2015, either on the registry owner's own initiative, or prompted by the automated reminder. As the RoPR continues to grow and more patient registry records are added over time, this percentage represents a growing, cumulative number.
Prior to the deployment of the live RoPR system, Quintiles conducted six (6) usability sessions with RoPR stakeholders using a web-based prototype.
In February 2015, Quintiles conducted a knowledge transfer webinar for registry contacts to learn how to enter new records into the RoPR. As a result of the knowledge gained during these processes, it is estimated that it takes users 45 minutes to manually enter a new RoPR record; and 15 minutes to upload a new RoPR record (an average of 30 minutes using either method). It takes 15 minutes for a user to review and make updates to an existing RoPR record.
In order to highlight patient registry concerns about using the RoPR system and turning user feedback into future system maintenance and upgrade initiatives (increasing the usability of the RoPR and lowering the burden of entering patient registry information), plans for a voluntary user satisfaction survey is being considered for development and deployment in 2Q 2016. Its full nature and design is still in the concept stage and so this survey is not part of the Estimated Annualized Respondent Hourly/Cost Burden noted in Exhibits 1 and 2.
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.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed information collection request entitled “A Study of Viral Persistence in Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) Survivors”. The purpose of this information collection is to gather the necessary information for the CDC and the international community to begin the activities necessary to reach the goal of zero new EVD cases throughout West Africa. Once that goal is reached, the 42-day countdown to declare West Africa Ebola-free can begin. “Persistence of Ebola Virus in Body Fluids of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) Survivors in Sierra Leone”. This information collection will be the first systematic examination of the post-recovery persistence of Ebola virus and the risks of transmission from a cohort of convalescent Ebola survivors during close or intimate contact.
Written comments must be received on or before November 20, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0085 by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Persistence of Ebola Virus in Body Fluids of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) Survivors in Sierra Leone—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Much progress has been made in the year since the CDC first responded to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, but the agency's efforts must continue until there are zero new cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD). As the CDC's 2014 Ebola virus response draws closer to the international goal of zero new EVD cases in 2015, the agency must intensify its efforts to identify and prevent every potential route of human disease transmission and to understand the most current community barriers to reaching that final goal.
“Persistence of Ebola Virus (EBOV) in Body Fluids of EVD Survivors in Sierra Leone” will be the first systematic examination of the post-recovery persistence of EBOV and the risks of transmission from a cohort of convalescent Ebola survivors during close or intimate contact. This activity is currently approved by OMB for emergency use under OMB Control Number 0920-1064—Persistence of Ebola Virus (EBOV) in Body Fluids of EVD Survivors in Sierra Leone, which expires on November 30, 2015. It is important to fully understand how long the virus stays active in body fluids other than blood in order to target and refine public health interventions to arrest the ongoing spread of disease.
The research study is comprised of three modules based on the body fluids to be studied: A pilot module of adult males (semen) and two full modules: Module A of adult men and women repeating collections and questionnaires every two weeks (semen, vaginal secretions, and saliva, tears, sweat, urine, rectal swab), and Module B of lactating adult women repeating collections and questionnaires every three days (sweat and breast milk).
Participants for each module will be recruited by trained study staff from Ebola treatment units and survivor registries. Participants will be followed up at study sites in government hospitals.
Specimens will be tested for EBOV ribonucleic acid (RNA) by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) in Sierra Leone at the CDC laboratory facility in Bo. All positive RT-PCR samples will be sent to CDC for virus isolation. Each body fluid will be collected until two negative RT-PCR results are obtained.
Participants will be followed until all their studied body fluids are negative. They will receive tokens of appreciation for their participation at the initial visit and again at every subsequent follow-up visit [
Results and analyses are needed to update relevant counseling messages and recommendations from the Sierra Leone Ministry of Health, World Health Organization and CDC. The study will provide the most current information that is critical to the development of public health measures, such as recommendations about sexual activity, breastfeeding, and other routine activities and approaches to evaluation of survivors to determine whether they can safely resume sexual activity. These approaches in turn are expected to reduce the risk of Ebola resurgence and mitigate stigma for thousands of survivors. The information is likewise critical to reducing the risk that Ebola would be introduced in a location that has not previously been affected. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 2,474.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed collection Active Monitoring of Travelers Coming from Ebola-affected Countries and Their Contacts Currently Residing in State, Territorial, and Local Jurisdictions.
Written comments must be received on or before November 20, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0082 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation,
Active Monitoring of Travelers Coming from Ebola-affected Countries and Their Contacts Currently Residing in State, Territorial, and Local Jurisdictions—New—Office of Emergency Preparedness and Response (OPHPR); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance for 3 years to allow the agency to effectively complement its ongoing international and travel-related efforts for rapid case identification, contact tracing, and infection control of Ebola virus disease (EVD) now within the United States.
CDC is requesting an approval to receive daily and weekly active monitoring reports from any, or as many as, 62 state and local health departments (SLHDs) involved in active monitoring of EVD in their jurisdictions. This information collection is currently approved via an emergency review under OMB Approval number 0920-1066, which expires on 11/30/2015. These 62 health departments are all awardees of CDC's Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) cooperative agreement (CDC-RFA-TP12-1201). This information collection is authorized under Section 319C-1 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241), as amended by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (PAHPRA,
Travelers coming from Ebola-affected countries are screened by U.S. Quarantine Stations upon entry into the United States, and are classified into one of four risk categories according to the CDC's “Interim Guidance for Monitoring and Movement of Persons with Potential Ebola Virus Exposure.” These risk categories are “high risk”, “some risk”, “low (but not zero) risk” and “no identifiable risk.” The travelers' risk classification information is transmitted by the U.S. Quarantine Stations to the state, territorial, or local jurisdictions which the travelers declare as their final destination. At this point, the state and local health departments (SLHDs) begin active monitoring of these travelers and their contacts for the development of EVD for 21 days.
For those persons who are identified during entry screening as being at “high risk”, “some risk,” or who are returning healthcare workers at “low, but not zero, risk,” SLHDs are responsible for ensuring that a public health authority (or delegate for healthcare workers) conducts direct active monitoring (DAM) by directly observing each person at least once daily to review the presence of symptoms consistent with EVD; and discussing plans to work, travel, take public conveyances, or be present in congregate locations.
For non-healthcare workers assessed as being at “low, but not zero, risk”, SLHDs are responsible for conducting active monitoring (AM) by receiving daily reports of temperature monitoring and symptoms from these persons.
The CDC will provide the reporting forms which will require a minimum number of data fields to be updated daily or weekly until active monitoring is no longer necessary. The respondents are reporting this information as part of their official duties as CDC cooperative agreement awardees. There are no costs to respondents other that their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 2,359.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of draft document available for public comment.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of a draft strategic plan entitled
Electronic or written comments must be received by October 21, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by CDC-2015-0080 and Docket Number NIOSH-283, by either of the following methods:
•
•
David L. Caruso, NIOSH, Office of the Director, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, (412) 386-6473 (not a toll-free number), Email:
The purpose of this strategic plan is to define and prioritize occupational safety and health research and prevention activities for NIOSH in the oil and gas exploration and production industry through 2025. This strategic plan focuses on conducting priority research to prevent injuries, illnesses and fatalities to workers employed in the onshore, exploration and production industry. The plan's research goals are organized according to the four areas that make up the NIOSH Oil and Gas Sector Program: (1) Epidemiology and surveillance, (2) exposure assessment, (3) control technologies, and (4) communications. The plan also includes performance measures that describe specific research activities that will be used to guide research, measure progress, and evaluate the success of the NIOSH Oil and Gas Sector Program in improving safety and health in this high-risk industry.
NIOSH is seeking public review and comment on this document from everyone with an interest in the health and safety of workers in the oil and gas extraction and production industry.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed revision of the information collection entitled “
Written comments must be received on or before November 20, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0083 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
National Disease Surveillance Program I—Case Reports—(OMB Control Number 0920-0009, Expiration, 4/30/2016)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Disease (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Surveillance of the incidence and distribution of disease has been an important function of the US Public Health Service (PHS) since an 1878 Act of Congress authorized the PHS to collect morbidity reports. After the Malaria Control in War Areas Program had fulfilled its original 1942 objective of reducing malaria transmission, its basic tenets were carried forward and broadened by the formation of the Communicable Disease Center (CDC) in 1946. CDC was conceived of as a well-equipped, broadly staffed agency used to translate facts about analysis of morbidity and mortality statistics on communicable diseases and through field investigations.
The surveillance emphasis has shifted as certain diseases have declined in incidence, national emergencies have prompted involvement in new areas, and other diseases have taken on new aspects. Surveillance for the following diseases was approved three years ago: Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), Cyclosporiasis cayetanensis, Q Fever, Dengue, Reye Syndrome, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS), Tick-borne Rickettsial Disease, Kawasaki syndrome, Trichinosis, Legionellosis, Tularemia, Lyme Disease (LD), Typhoid Fever, Malaria, Viral Hepatitis, and Plague. Due to change requests and surveillance systems moving to 0920-0728 (National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS)) during the last three years, the following diseases/conditions are now included in this program: Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), Reye Syndrome, Kawasaki syndrome, and Acute Flaccid Myelitis. CDC needs to continue this surveillance package for another 3 years to maintain continuity in these surveillance systems. The data throughout the years are used to monitor the occurrence of non-notifiable conditions and to plan and conduct prevention and control programs at the state, territorial, local and national levels.
CDC currently collects data for certain diseases in summary form under OMB No. 0920-0004, (National Disease Surveillance Program II—Disease Summaries). These disease summaries are for important, yet different types of infections from those covered in this disease case reports request. Maintaining separate OMB numbers for these two types of data collections assists CDC in managing the two surveillance activities.
CDC works with state health departments to propose, coordinate, and evaluate nationwide surveillance systems. State epidemiologists are responsible for the collection, interpretation, and transmission of medical and epidemiological information to CDC.
The original purpose for reporting communicable diseases was to determine the prevalence of diseases dangerous to public health. However, collecting data also provided the basis for planning and evaluating effective programs for prevention and control of infectious diseases. Current information on disease incidence is needed to study present and emerging disease problems. CDC coordination of nationwide reporting maintains uniformity so that comparisons can be made from state to state and year to year.
In addition to development of prevention and control programs, surveillance data serves as statistical material for those engaged in research or medical practice, aid to health education officials and students, and data for manufacturers of pharmaceutical products. Annual surveillance data are published in the MMWR Surveillance Summary. The total burden requested is 190 hours, a decrease in 11,257 hours since the last submission. This is due to the other diseases moving to the Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (0920-0728). There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by November 20, 2015.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a draft Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) entitled “Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 100.101
Although you can comment on any CPG at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that we consider your comment on the draft CPG before we begin work on the final version of the CPG, submit written or electronic comments on the draft CPG by November 20, 2015.
Submit electronic comments on the draft CPG to
George C. Ziobro, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-316), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1700; or Amber M. McCoig, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-230), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5556.
We are announcing the availability of a draft CPG entitled “Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 100.101
We are making available the draft CPG because the revocation of CPG 7126.15 in 1994 inadvertently affected interactions between FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS). Under a Memorandum of Understanding between FDA and USDA (MOU 225-80-2000;
CPG 7126.25 established a regulatory action criterion of “an average of at least one whole seed of
The draft CPG is being made available consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft CPG, when finalized, will represent our current thinking on
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft CPG from FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs Compliance Policy Guide Revision/Update History page. It may be accessed at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of additional draft and revised draft product-specific bioequivalence (BE) recommendations. The recommendations provide product-
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comments on these draft and revised draft guidances before it begins work on the final versions of the guidances, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft and revised draft product-specific BE recommendations listed in this notice by November 20, 2015.
Submit written requests for single copies of the individual BE guidances to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Bldg., 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft product-specific BE recommendations to
Xiaoqiu Tang, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4730, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5850.
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process as a means to develop and disseminate product-specific BE recommendations and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those recommendations. Under that process, draft recommendations are posted on FDA's Web site and announced periodically in the
FDA is announcing the availability of a new draft guidance for industry on product-specific BE recommendations for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
FDA is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry on product-specific BE recommendations for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
For a complete history of previously published
These draft and revised draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These guidances represent the Agency's current thinking on product-specific design of BE studies to support ANDAs. They do not establish any rights for anyone and are not binding on FDA or the public. You may use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments on any of the specific BE recommendations posted on FDA's Web site to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Animal Food Labeling; Declaration of Certifiable Color Additives” 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 July 16, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Animal Food Labeling; Declaration of Certifiable Color Additives” 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 0910-0721. The approval expires on August 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 requesting that any consumer organizations interested in participating in the selection of a voting consumer representative to serve on the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (the Committee) notify FDA in writing. FDA is also requesting nominations for a voting consumer representative to serve on the Committee. Nominees recommended to serve as a voting consumer representative may either be self-nominated or may be nominated by a consumer organization. Nominations will be accepted for the current vacancy effective with this notice.
FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
Any consumer organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate voting member to represent consumer interests on the Committee may send a letter or email stating that interest to FDA by October 21, 2015. Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA by October 21, 2015.
All statements of interest from consumer organizations interested in participating in the selection process should be sent electronically to Kimberly Hamilton (see
FDA is requesting nominations for a voting consumer representative on the Committee.
Elsewhere in this issue of the
1. Patient Engagement Advisory Committee; Notice of Establishment.
2. Request for Nominations for Voting Members for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee.
3. Request for Nominations of Individuals and Industry Organizations for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee.
The Committee provides advice on complex issues relating to medical devices, the regulation of devices, and their use by patients. Agency guidance and policies, clinical trial or registry design, patient preference study design, benefit-risk determinations, device labeling, unmet clinical needs, available alternatives, patient reported outcomes and device-related quality of life or health status issues are among the topics that may be considered by the Committee. Members are knowledgeable in areas such as clinical research, primary care patient experience, health care needs of patient groups in the
Persons nominated for membership as a consumer representative on this Committee should meet the following criteria: (1) Demonstrate ties to consumer and community-based organizations, (2) be able to analyze technical data, (3) understand research design, (4) discuss benefits and risks, and (5) evaluate the safety and efficacy of products under review. The consumer representative should be able to represent the consumer perspective on issues and actions before the Committee; serve as a liaison between the Committee and interested consumers, associations, coalitions, and consumer organizations; and facilitate dialogue with the Committees on scientific issues that affect consumers.
Selection of members representing consumer interests is conducted through procedures that include the use of organizations representing the public interest and public advocacy groups. These organizations recommend nominees for the Agency's selection. Representatives from the consumer health branches of Federal, State, and local governments also may participate in the selection process. Any consumer organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate voting member to represent consumer interests must send a letter stating that interest to FDA (see
Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will compile a list of consumer organizations that will participate in the selection process and will forward to each such organization a ballot listing three to five qualified nominees selected by the Agency based on the nominations received, together with each nominee's current curriculum vitae or resume. Ballots are to be filled out and returned to FDA within 30 days. The nominee receiving the highest number of votes ordinarily will be selected to serve as the member representing consumer interests for that particular advisory committee.
Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more qualified individuals to represent consumer interests on the Committee. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations should include a cover letter; a current, complete resume or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including a current business and/or home address, telephone number, and email address if available; and a list of consumer or community-based organizations for which the candidate can demonstrate active participation. Nominations should also specify the advisory committee for which the nominee is recommended. In addition, nominations should also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination, unless self-nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters related to financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest. Members will be invited to serve for terms up to 4 years.
FDA will review all nominations received within the specified timeframes and prepare a ballot containing the names of three to five qualified nominees. Names not selected will remain on a list of eligible nominees and be reviewed periodically by FDA to determine continued interest. Upon selecting qualified nominees for the ballot, FDA will provide those consumer organizations that are participating in the selection process with the opportunity to vote on the listed nominees. Only organizations vote in the selection process. Persons who nominate themselves to serve as voting consumer representatives will not participate in the selection process.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting nominations for members to serve on the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (the Committee), Office of the Center Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
Nominations received by November 20, 2015, will be given first consideration for membership on the Committee. Nominations received after November 20, 2015, will be considered for nomination to the Committee as later vacancies occur.
All nominations for membership should be sent electronically by logging into the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal:
Letise Williams, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5441, 301-796-8398, FAX: 301-847-8510,
FDA is requesting nominations for voting members for the Committee.
Elsewhere in this issue of the
1. Patient Engagement Advisory Committee; Notice of Establishment.
2. Request for Nominations of Individuals and Industry Organizations for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee.
3. Request for Nominations of Individuals and Consumer Organizations for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee.
The Committee provides advice on complex issues relating to medical devices, the regulation of devices, and their use by patients. Agency guidance
The Committee consists of a core of nine voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs or designee from among authorities who are knowledgeable in areas such as clinical research, primary care patient experience, healthcare needs of patient groups in the United States, or are experienced in the work of patient and health professional organizations, methodologies for eliciting patient preferences, and strategies for communicating benefits, risks, and clinical outcomes to patients and research subjects. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Prospective members should also have an understanding of the broad spectrum of patients in a particular disease area. Almost all non-Federal members of this Committee serve as Special Government Employees.
Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership on the Committee. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations should include a cover letter; a current, complete resume or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including a current business and/or home address, telephone number, and email address if available; and should specify the advisory committee for which the nominee is recommended. Nominations should also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination, unless self-nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters related to financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of a pool of nonvoting industry representatives to serve as temporary nonvoting members on the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (the Committee) for the Center for Devices and Radiological Health notify FDA in writing. FDA is also requesting nominations for temporary nonvoting industry representatives to be included in a pool of individuals to serve on the Committee. Nominees recommended to serve as a temporary nonvoting industry representative may either be self-nominated or nominated by an industry organization. This position may be filled by representatives of different medical device areas based on areas of expertise relevant to the topics being considered by the Committee. Nominations will be accepted for current vacancies effective with this notice.
FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interest, must send a letter stating that interest to FDA by
All statements of interest from interested industry organizations interested in participating in the selection process should be sent electronically to Margaret Ames (see
FDA is requesting nominations for a pool of nonvoting industry representatives for the Committee (this position may be filled by representatives of different medical device areas based on areas of expertise relevant to the topics being considered by the Committee).
Elsewhere in this issue of the
1. Patient Engagement Advisory Committee; Notice of Establishment.
2. Request for Nominations for Voting Members for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee.
3. Request for Nominations of Individuals and Consumer Organizations for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee.
The Committee provides advice on complex issues relating to medical devices, the regulation of devices, and their use by patients. Agency guidance and policies, clinical trial or registry design, patient preference study design,
Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interest must send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see
Individuals may self nominate and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a temporary nonvoting industry representative. Nominations should include a cover letter and a current, complete resume or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including a current business and/or home address, telephone number, and email address if available. Nominations should specify the advisory committee for which the nominee is recommended within 30 days of publication of this document (see
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Sujata Vijh at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Hong at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the establishment of the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee will provide advice to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) or designee, on complex issues relating to medical devices, regulation of devices, and their use by patients. The Committee may consider topics such as Agency guidance and policies, clinical trial or registry design, patient preference study design, benefit-risk determinations, device labeling, unmet clinical needs, available alternatives, patient reported outcomes and device-related quality of life or health status issues, and other patient-related topics. The Agency is also announcing the establishment of a public docket for comments on the potential topics.
Comments received by November 20, 2015, will be provided to the Agency.
Submit electronic comments to
Letise Williams, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5441, 301-796-8398, FAX: 301-847-8510.
The Committee will provide advice to the Commissioner or designee, on complex issues relating to medical devices, the regulation of devices, and their use by patients. The Committee may consider topics such as: Agency guidance and policies, clinical trial or registry design, patient preference study design, benefit-risk determinations, device labeling, unmet clinical needs, available alternatives, patient reported outcomes and device-related quality of life or health status issues, and other patient-related topics. The Committee will provide relevant skills and perspectives, in order to improve communication of benefits, risks, clinical outcomes, and increase integration of patient perspectives into the regulatory process for medical devices. It will perform its duties by discussing and providing advice and recommendation in ways such as: Identifying new approaches, promoting innovation, recognizing unforeseen risks or barriers, and identifying unintended consequences that could result from FDA policy.
The Committee will consist of a core of nine voting members, including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from experts who are knowledgeable in areas such as clinical research, primary care patient experience, and health care needs of patient groups in the United States. Selected Committee members may also be experienced in the work of patient and health professional organizations; methodologies for eliciting patient preferences; and strategies for communicating benefits, risks and clinical outcomes to patients and research subjects. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The voting members may include one consumer representative who is a technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, identified with consumer interests, and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer oriented organizations or other interested persons.
The Commissioner or designee will also have the authority to select from a group of individuals nominated by industry to serve temporarily as non-voting members who are identified with industry interests. The number of temporary non-voting members selected for a particular meeting will depend on the meeting topic.
FDA is also soliciting public feedback on potential topics for this Committee to discuss and advise the Agency. The following topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Where can patients provide input across the medical device total product lifecycle? What should be the focus of that input (
• How should FDA directly engage patients for input related to medical device premarket considerations (
• How should FDA engage patients for input related to medical device performance once products are available on the market?
• Under what conditions should health care professional or patient labeling include information about patient preference studies or patient reported outcomes (PROs)?
• How should sponsors present patient preference information or PROs in the health care professional and patient labeling?
• How should labeling indicate that only a portion of patients in a patient preference study were willing to accept certain risks in order to achieve probable benefits?
• How should sponsors and the FDA ensure that patients receive and understand patient preference information?
• How can patient preferences be obtained in an unbiased manner if the device study has already enrolled and/or been published?
• How do patients view clinical study informed consent forms?
Elsewhere in this issue of the
1. Request for Nominations for Voting Members for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee
2. Request for Nominations of Individuals and Consumer Organizations for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee
3. Request for Nominations of Individuals and Industry Organizations for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee
FDA intends to publish a final rule in the
FDA is opening a docket for 60 days to provide an opportunity for public comment on the potential topics. Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding the potential topics to
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 Board of Scientific Counselors, NHLBI.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information Sharing Environment (ISEO)/Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO), HSD.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee (HSINAC) published a document in the
Allison Buchinski,
In the
The HSINAC will meet on Wednesday, April 27, 2016 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. EST and Thursday, April 28, 2016 from 9 a.m.-12 p.m. in
In the
A public comment period will be held during the meeting on Wednesday, April 27, 2016 from 4:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. and again on Thursday, April 28, from 11:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact one of the individuals listed below to register as a speaker.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection for review; G-79A; Information Relating to Beneficiary of Private Bill; OMB Control No. 1653-0026.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Chief Information Office, Forms Management Office, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, 801 I Street NW., Mailstop 5800, Washington, DC 20536-5800.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
((2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, 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
Theodore K. Toon, Director, Office of Multifamily Production, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Collete Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
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.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, 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, ODAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-0306 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number).
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in section A.
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
Draft policy for public notice and comment; reopening of comment period.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening the comment period for the draft Native American Policy, which we announced for public comment in the
The Service will accept public comment through October 21, 2015.
The draft Native American Policy is available at
Scott Aikin, Native American Programs Coordinator, by mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232; or via email at
We are reopening the comment period for the draft Native American Policy, which we made available for public comment from August 2, 2015 (80 FR 46043), through September 2, 2015. The purpose of this Policy is to further the United States' trust responsibility to Indian tribes by establishing a framework on which to base our continued interactions with federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. The Policy recognizes the sovereignty of federally recognized tribes; states that the Service will work on a government-to-government basis with tribal governments; and includes guidance on co-management, access to and use of cultural resources, capacity development, law enforcement, and education.
The draft Native American Policy is available for review and comment at
This publication opens a new 30-day comment period, during which we invite and encourage tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) to continue to review and submit comments. The Service's invitation to federally recognized tribal governments to consult on a government-to-government basis regarding development of this updated Native American Policy continues until 30 days after this
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), as lead agency, intends to gather information necessary for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Tribe) application for a proposed 60-acre fee-to-trust transfer and casino project to be located in Fruitport Township, Muskegon County, Michigan. This notice also announces the beginning of the public scoping process to solicit public comments and identify potential issues and content for inclusion in the EIS.
Written comments on the scope of the EIS must arrive by October 21, 2015. The date and location of a public scoping meeting will be announced at least 15 days in advance through a notice to be published in the local newspaper, the Muskegon Chronicle, and posted at
You may mail, hand carry, or fax written comments to Ms. Diane Rosen, Midwest Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Midwest Region, Norman Pointe II Building, 5600 West American Boulevard, Suite 500, Bloomington, Minnesota 55437; Fax: (612) 713-4401. Additionally, you may email comments to the person listed in the
Mr. Scott Doig, Acting Regional Environmental Scientist, Bureau of
The Tribe has submitted an application to BIA requesting that approximately 60 acres of land be transferred from fee to trust status upon which the Tribe would develop a casino, hotel, parking, and other supporting facilities. In order for the Department to fully consider and either grant or deny the Tribe's application, the Department must first comply with NEPA. The property is located within Fruitport Township, Muskegon County, Michigan, approximately 5 miles south of the City of Muskegon. It is bounded by Interstate 96 to the northeast and Ellis Road to the south. Areas of environmental concern identified for analysis in the EIS include land resources, water resources, air quality, noise, biological resources, cultural resources, resource use patterns, traffic and transportation, public health/environmental hazards, public services and utilities, socioeconomics, environmental justice, and visual resources/aesthetics. Alternatives identified for analysis include the proposed action, a non-gaming alternative, a reduced-intensity alternative, and an alternative site location. The range of issues and alternatives are open to revision based on comments received in response to this notice. Other related approvals may be required to implement the project, including approval of the Tribe's fee-to-trust application, determination of the site's eligibility for gaming, compliance with the Clean Water Act, and local service agreements. To the extent applicable, the EIS will identify and evaluate issues related to these approvals. The purpose of the Tribe's proposed action is to improve the economic status of the Tribal government so it can better provide housing, health care, education, cultural programs, and other services to its members. Additional information, including a map of the project site, is available by contacting the person listed in the
Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BIA address shown in the
This notice is published in accordance with sections 1503.1 and 1506.6 of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4345
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee (MAC) will meet as indicated below.
The MAC will meet on October 6, 2015, from 8:30 a.m.-3:45 p.m. at Brickworks, 150 Nichols St, Friday Harbor, Washington 98250.
Meeting discussion will include an update on the planning process and a brief review of the scoping report (which is currently available to the public). The committee will then discuss the BLM's progress on developing preliminary draft management alternatives based on scoping comments, MAC input, and internal discussions.
Marcia deChadenèdes, San Juan Islands National Monument Manager, P.O. Box 3, 37 Washburn Ave., Lopez Island, Washington 98261, (360) 468-3051, or
The twelve member San Juan Islands MAC was chartered to provide information and advice regarding the development of the San Juan Islands National Monument's RMP. Members represent an array of stakeholder interests in the land and resources from within the local area and statewide. All advisory committee meetings are open to the public. At 12 p.m. members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments to the MAC during a one-hour public comment period. Persons wishing to make comments during the public comment period should register in person with the BLM by 12 p.m. that meeting day, at the meeting location. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, the length of comments may be limited. The public may send written comments to the MAC at San Juan Islands National Monument, Attn. MAC, P.O. Box 3, 37 Washburn Ave., Lopez Island, Washington 98261. The BLM appreciates all comments.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC) will meet as indicated below:
October 22, 2015, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and October 23, 2015 from
Tara Thissell, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Burns District Office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738, (541) 573-4519, or email
The SMAC was initiated August 14, 2001, pursuant to the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-399). The SMAC provides representative counsel and advice to the BLM regarding new and unique approaches to management of the land within the bounds of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area, recommends cooperative programs and incentives for landscape management that meet human needs, and advises the BLM on maintenance and improvement of the ecological and economic integrity of the area. Agenda items for the October 22-23 session include: Updates from the Designated Federal Official and the Andrews/Steens Resource Area Field Manager; discussions regarding projects for the Steens Mountain Comprehensive Recreation Plan, inholder access, and fencing in the No Livestock Grazing Area; and regular business items such as approving the previous meeting's minutes, member round-table, and planning the next meeting's agenda. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the SMAC may also be addressed. A public comment period is available both days. Unless otherwise approved by the SMAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the SMAC for a maximum of five minutes. The public is welcome to attend all sessions, including the field tour, but must provide personal transportation.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service, NPS) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
You must submit comments on or before October 21, 2015.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
Dr. John Duffield, University of Montana, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Missoula, MT 5981;
On September 23, 2013 we published a 60-day
The purpose of this ICR is to request the use of the final version of the survey instrument that the NPS will use to collect information from the general public about their understanding of National Park System resources along the Colorado River Corridor. In addition to providing information to the Secretary of the Interior, we anticipate that the data will also update the Welsh et al. (1995) study that was used in the 1996 Record of Decision which the Department of the Interior used to inform its decision on Glen Canyon Dam operations. We acknowledge that planning processes related to Glen Canyon Dam operations will rely on many sources and providers of information to evaluate economic impacts and affected resources. The primary purpose of this ICR is to obtain information contemplated by the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Mission and Policy as follows: Social science research in support of park planning and management is mandated in the NPS Management Policies 2006 (Section 8.11.1, “Social Science Studies”). The NPS pursues a policy that facilitates social science studies in support of the NPS mission to protect resources and enhance the enjoyment of present and future generations (National Park Service Act of 1916, 38 Stat 535, 16 U.S.C. 1,
On September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58344) we published a 60-day
On July 9, 2014 we published in the
In summary, comments received from the organizations primarily concerned their overall objections towards the study and the overall utility of the collection. However, none of the letters addressed any specific changes or editorial corrections that could be made to the survey or the methodology. The NPS gave a presentation and addressed many questions regarding this survey and its methodology at the August 28, 2014 Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) meeting. The AMWG is a semi-annual meeting that is attended and represented by federal and state government agencies, including the National Park Service, and other stakeholders, tribal governments, and environmental organizations. Economists from the NPS also provided updates and addressed additional questions during two AMWG stakeholder conference calls (November 13, 2014 and December 16, 2014). A summary of the comments received from the following organizations are included below:
Comment: This collection is not necessary and will not have practical utility and does not clearly meet the requirements of 5 CFR 1320. Public will have the opportunity to comment on actual alternatives in public draft of the EIS. Survey alternatives do not accurately portray LTEMP alternatives therefore study is unnecessary and misleading. The purpose and intent of study needs to be clarified otherwise CREDA believes it is an unwarranted and unnecessary burden on respondents. The requested materials were not available until recently. Commitment to “include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR” was not met. There are inaccurate and misleading references in the Authorizing Statue(s) information and in Supporting Document A.
NPS Response: In order to collect information from the public, we must be granted approval by the Office of Management and Budget to do such. In accordance with, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which is the purpose of 5 CFR 1320.1, we have submitted the proper paperwork to OMB to request approval for this information collection, and were granted the approval to collect the information for the pilot study associated with this collection. We are again following the proper guidance provided by OMB to request approval to collect the requested information. For the conjoint analysis methodology, respondents are provided with information about the resource outcomes, not the alternatives. This methodology values individually the management outcomes, such as the conditions of river beaches, native fish populations, and trout populations. The outcome levels selected for the survey are set statistically to maximize estimation efficiency and are intended to represent the range of potential impacts. It is then possible to estimate the values of LTEMP alternatives by setting individual outcome levels to match those of the respective alternatives and adding their indicated values together. The NPS presented and addressed these questions regarding the survey methodology at the August 28, 2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also provided updates and addressed questions during the November 13, 2014 and December 16, 2014 AMWG stakeholder calls.
Comment: The survey fails to adequately represent resource interactions, dam operations, and associated management actions. The survey overemphasizes recreational values and underemphasizes values of other stakeholders. Results will misrepresent the value of important resources and provide false valuation of contemplated actions. Request that AMWG be given opportunity to discuss the survey's details at their August 2014 meeting.
NPS Response: For the conjoint analysis methodology, respondents are provided with information about the resource outcomes, not the alternatives. This methodology values individually the management outcomes such as the conditions of river beaches, native fish populations, and trout populations. The outcome levels selected for the survey are set statistically to maximize estimation efficiency and are intended to represent the range of potential impacts. It is then possible to estimate the values of LTEMP alternatives by setting individual outcome levels to match those of the respective alternatives and adding their indicated values together. The NPS presented and addressed these questions regarding the survey methodology at the August 28, 2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also provided updates and addressed questions during the November 13, 2014 and December 16, 2014 AMWG stakeholder calls.
Comment: The FRN lacks specific information that would aid the public in more fully understanding the purpose and need of the study. Unclear how any data and/or information collected via the ICR survey instruments would be used by the NPS. The CRB suggests that the appropriate venues for those activities should be through the AMWG and with the input of the LTEMP EIS co-lead agencies (
NPS Response: The current 30-day FRN attempts to provide the clarity requested. The title has been changed to “Glen Canyon Passive Use Survey.” For the conjoint analysis methodology, respondents are provided with information about the resource outcomes, not the alternatives. This methodology values individually the management outcomes such as the conditions of river beaches, native fish populations, and trout populations. The outcome levels selected for the survey are set statistically to maximize estimation efficiency and are intended to represent the range of potential impacts. It is then possible to estimate the values of LTEMP alternatives by setting individual outcome levels to match those of the respective alternatives and adding their indicated values together. The NPS presented and addressed questions regarding the survey methodology at the August 28, 2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also provided updates and addressed questions during the November 13, 2014 and December 16, 2014 AMWG stakeholder calls.
Comment: Alternatives presented in the survey do not represent the range of alternatives in the EIS and would result in little or no practical utility. It would be more appropriate for the pubic to comment on actual alternatives in the public draft of the LTEMP EIS.
NPS Response: For the conjoint analysis methodology, respondents are provided with information about the resource outcomes, not the alternatives. This methodology values individually the management outcomes such as the conditions of river beaches, native fish populations, and trout populations. The outcome levels selected for the survey are set statistically to maximize estimation efficiency and are intended to represent the range of potential impacts. It is then possible to estimate the values of LTEMP alternatives by setting individual outcome levels to match those of the respective alternatives and adding their indicated values together. The NPS presented and addressed questions regarding the survey methodology at the August 28, 2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also provided updates and addressed questions during the November 13, 2014 and December 16, 2014 AMWG stakeholder calls.
Comment: The FRN Notice is insufficient to discern utility of the information collection and therefore recommends that NPS clarify scope and purpose of information collection to allow parties to better understand the utility. The title of information collection is misleading. WAPA requested that NPS share the survey document and proposed that NPS integrate the collection of information through the survey, economic analysis, and any analysis that is being conducted to inform the Secretary on alternative management options.
NPS Response: The current 30-day FRN attempts to provide the clarity requested. The title has been changed to “Glen Canyon Passive Use Survey.” All documents associated with this submission are posted in Reginfo.gov as required by the Office of Management and Budget. The request for additional information in the 60-day
Comment: Echoed comments from others. Concerned about hidden and obscure documents not easily available for review by the public and interested parties so the ICR is fatally flawed as to be beyond salvage. Improper use of federal funds for which there is no credible use in the upcoming EIS analysis.
NPS Response: All documents associated with this submission are posted in Reginfo.gov as required by the Office of Management and Budget. The request for additional information in the 60-day
Comment: The collection is not necessary for proper performance of NPS functions as required by 5 CFR 1320 and will not have practical utility. Concerned by methodologies used and requested further examination of all aspects of this ICR including survey methodologies.
NPS Response: In order to collect information from the public, we must be granted approval by the Office of Management and Budget to do such. In accordance with, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which is the purpose of 5 CFR 1320.1, we have submitted the proper paperwork to OMB to request approval for this information collection and were granted the approval to collect the information for the pilot study associated with this collection. We are again following the proper guidance provided by OMB to request approval to collect the requested information. The NPS presented and addressed questions regarding the survey methodology at the August 28, 2014 AMWG meeting and provided updates and addressed questions during the November 13, 2014 and December 16, 2014 AMWG stakeholder calls.
Each of the organizations above rejected the notion of the need for this collection. The NPS participated in a number of conference calls coordinated by these groups to answer the concerns voiced in these correspondences. The NPS stated the basis for this collection is predicated on the research needed to update the Welsh et. al. (1995) because this was the most recent study addressing this topic and therefore up-to-date information on economic value of the NPS resources along Colorado River is overdue and necessary for NPS management needs.
In addition to the pilot survey, we solicited feedback from three professionals with expertise in economic valuation, natural resource management and planning as well as survey design and methodology. The
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this Notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us or OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) has issued an Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The ALJ found no violation of section 337. Should the Commission, however, find a violation of section 337, the ALJ recommends that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order against DongGuan Hai Precision Mould Co., Ltd. and issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against Solofill LLC with respect to U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on September 4, 2015. Comments should address whether issuance of limited exclusion orders and a cease and desist order in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on October 5, 2015.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 929”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of Open Meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.
October 29-30, 2015.
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
University of Notre Dame Law Suite, 224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 250, Chicago, IL 60604.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
On June 20, 2014, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Chung-Kuang Chen, M.D. (Respondent), of Chicago, Illinois. The Show Cause Order proposed the denial of Respondent's application for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a practitioner, based,
Respondent initially requested a hearing and the matter was placed on the docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The Government moved for summary disposition, after which Respondent sought to withdraw his application.
When, as of August 13, 2015, this Office had not been notified as to whether Respondent's withdrawal request had either been granted or denied, I ordered that Respondent's withdrawal request be ruled on no later than 10 days from the date of the Order. Order of the Administrator (Aug. 13, 2015). Thereafter, on September 4, 2015, the Government moved to dismiss the proceeding, explaining that on September 2, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator granted Respondent's withdrawal request, based on Respondent's decision to retire from the practice of medicine. Gov. Mot. to Dismiss the Order to Show Cause, at 2-3.
Having considered the Government's motion, I grant the Government's motion and will dismiss the Order to Show Cause.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that the Order to Show Cause issued to Chung-Kuang Chen, M.D., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. This Order is effective immediately.
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Lister Harrell, Saraland, L.L.L.P, Middle Georgia Road Builders, Inc., and Robert Sutton (“Defendants”) pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by requiring the Defendants to restore the impacted areas, perform mitigation, and pay a civil penalty.
The United States Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Martin McDermott, Senior Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044 and refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia (Augusta Division), United States Courthouse, 600 James Brown Boulevard, Augusta, GA 30901. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically
Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, 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 of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until October 21, 2015.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jennifer Bickford, Assistant Deputy Chief, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, 1400 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005 (phone: 202-514-1263). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Officer of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• 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 agencies 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,
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Attorney General is required by statute to “assure that any property transferred to a State or local law enforcement agency . . . will serve to encourage further cooperation between the recipient State or local agency and Federal law enforcement agencies.” 21 U.S.C. 881(e)(3). The Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) ensures such cooperation by requiring that all such “equitably shared” funds be used only for law enforcement purposes and not be distributed to other governmental agencies by the recipient law enforcement agencies. By requiring that law enforcement agencies that participate in the Equitable Sharing Program (Program) file an Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification (ESAC), AFMLS can readily ensure compliance with its statutory obligations.
The ESAC requires information regarding the receipt and expenditure of Program funds from the participating agency. In addition, AFMLS will now require reporting in response to Executive Order 13688 “Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition”, issued January 16, 2015, that identified controlled equipment. Executive Order 13688 requires the applicable federal agency to collect and report data on any purchases of controlled equipment, as defined in the Executive Order, by state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies.
Accordingly, it seeks information that is exclusively in the hands of the participating agency.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit modification request received and permit issued
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities regulated and permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of a requested permit modification and permit issued.
Li Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer, Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email:
The Foundation issued a permit (ACA 2016-003) to Celia Lang, Lockheed Martin IS&GS on August 11, 2015. The issued permit allows the applicant to enter specifically named McMurdo area ASPAs to support NSF funded USAP science operations. Now the applicant proposes a modification to the permit to add ASPA 175 High Altitude Geothermal Sites of the Ross Sea Region to the list for possible entry. The Environmental Officer has reviewed the modification request and has determined that the amendment is not a material change to the permit, and it will have a less than a minor or transitory impact.
August 11, 2015 to August 31, 2020.
The permit modification was issued on September 16, 2015.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Modification Request Received and Permit Issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities regulated and permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of a requested permit modification and permit issued.
September 16, 2015 to August 31, 2017.
Li Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer, Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email:
The Foundation issued a permit (ACA 2013-019) to Celia Lang, Lockheed Martin IS&GS on October 15, 2012. The issued permit allows the applicant to enter various ASPAs for environmental reasons.
A recent modification to this permit, dated November 11, 2014, permitted the applicant to enter Cape Hallett in November 2014.
Now the applicant proposes a modification to the permit to add the following ASPAs to the list for possible entry to: Barwick Valley (123), Lowe Taylor Glacier and Blood Falls (172), Cape Hallett (106), Cape Shirreff (149), Litchfield Island (113), and Biscoe Point (139). The Environmental Officer has reviewed the modification request and has determined that the amendment is not a material change to the permit, and it will have a less than a minor or transitory impact.The permit modification was issued on September 16, 2015.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on September 23, 2015, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) associated with the staff's review of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Kent Howard (Telephone 301-415-2989 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Radiation Protection and Nuclear Materials will hold a meeting on September 25, 2015, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review and discuss the status of the Revised Fuel Cycle Oversight Process (RFCOP) Cornerstones. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Girija Shukla (Telephone 301-415-6855 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Radiation Protection and Nuclear Materials will hold a meeting on September 22, 2015, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is propriety pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review and discuss the SHINE construction permit application for a Mo99 medical radioisotopes production facility under 10 CFR part 50 (Chapters 11, 12 [Quality Assurance only], 6b, and 13b). The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Maitri Banerjee (Telephone 301-415-6973 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
September 21, 28, October 5, 12, 19, 26, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 5, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 12, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 26, 2015.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Glenn Ellmers at 301-415-0442 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection will hold a meeting on September 24, 2015, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the Reactor Oversight Process Enhancements. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Derek Widmayer (Telephone 301-415-5375 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Future Plant Designs will hold a meeting on September 24, 2015, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss the NuScale Design-Specific Review Standard. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Maitri Banerjee (Telephone 301-415-6973 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
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 an Open Meeting on Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
• The Commission will consider whether to propose a new rule and amendments to certain rules and forms that would provide for liquidity risk management programs and related disclosures for open-end management investment companies.
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, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, September 23, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC.
The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (EDT) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
On September 2, 2015, the Commission published notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-9899), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging companies under the federal securities laws.
For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to make changes to the Facility Fees section of the Fees Schedule and in particular, the Notes section associated with the Floor Broker Workstation (“FBW”) and Floor Broker Workstation 2 (“FBW2”) line-items. Pursuant to that section, the Exchange charges a Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) a monthly fee of $400.00 per login ID per month for the use of a FBW or FBW2.
The Exchange proposes to make changes to the Facility Fees section of the Fees Schedule in the Notes of the FBW and FBW2 line-items to add that FBW and FBW2 login IDs will be renewed automatically for the next month unless the TPH submits written notification to the Market Operations Department by 3:00 p.m. CT on the second-to-last business day of the prior month.
Currently, the Fees Schedule makes clear that monthly fees are assessed and applied in their entirety and not prorated, but gives no time or day by which such cancellation must be received by the Exchange. Accordingly, so long as a work request is received before the end of the last second of the day before the end of the month, a TPH may cancel an FBW or FBW2 login ID for that month.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to require that FBW and FBW2 login IDs will be renewed automatically for the next month unless the TPH submits written notification to the Market Operations Department by 3:00 p.m. CT on the second-to-last business day of the prior month to
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes apply to all FBW and FBW2 users. Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that the $400.00 monthly charge that would apply to FBW and FBW [sic] users that do not submit written notification to the Market Operations Department by 3:00 p.m. CT on the second-to-last business day of the prior month to cancel the FBW or FBW2 login ID effective at or prior to the end of the applicable month is of a nature that is large enough to discourage the use of FBW or FBW2 or which would impose a burden on competition. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because these changes apply to billing and fees that affect CBOE only, not other exchanges. Further, to the extent that the proposed changes ensure that configuration issues do not occur or affect Floor Brokers on the Exchange, such market participants may be more likely to operate on the Exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
60-day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before November 20, 2015.
Send all comments to Daniel Upham, Chief, Microenterprise Development Division, Office of Capital Access, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
Daniel Upham, Chief, Microenterprise Development Division, 202-205-7001,
The Microenterprise Development Division holds a national training conference every two years for intermediary lenders participating in the Microloan Program to ensure that intermediaries have the knowledge, skills and understanding of microlending practice necessary to operate successful microloan programs. At the conclusion of the training conference, SBA desires feedback in the form of a survey to allow future improvements to training materials and presentation techniques.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by TxDOT and Federal Agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project making improvements to Interstate Highway (IH) 30 from Cooper Street to State Highway (SH) 161, in Tarrant County and Dallas County in the State of Texas. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, TxDOT is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before February 19, 2016. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for
Mr. Carlos Swonke, Director, Environmental Affairs Division, Texas Department of Transportation, 125 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701; telephone: 512-416-2734; email:
Notice is hereby given that TxDOT and Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Texas: IH 30 from Cooper Street to SH 161, including the IH 30/SH 360 interchange, in Tarrant County and Dallas County, Texas. The project will construct a fully directional, multi-level IH 30/SH 360 interchange providing direct-connecting ramps for all freeway-to-freeway traffic movements. The proposed interchange will require reconstructing the SH 360 main lanes from north of Avenue J to Road to Six Flags Street; widening the existing main lanes from Brown Boulevard/Avenue K to north of Avenue J; and reconstructing the one-way, continuous frontage roads along SH 360 within the project limits (approximately 1.6 miles). The proposed improvements to IH 30 will provide up to ten general-purpose lanes and auxiliary lanes from Cooper Street to SH 161 (approximately 5.0 miles). Two reversible managed lanes will be provided from Center Street to SH 161, tying into the existing two-lane reversible managed lane system in Dallas County. Selected main lane widening, ramp improvements, and restriping will be utilized to create the proposed number of lanes and reversible managed lanes. The limits and general configuration of the existing IH 30 frontage roads will not be altered, except that one-way collector-distributor roadways between Ballpark Way and Six Flags Drive will be constructed to facilitate access between the IH 30 ramps and the local street network. The proposed project design includes improvements for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, where practicable. The purpose of the proposed project is to help address current and projected travel demands, safety, and existing facility design and operational deficiencies in a manner compatible with local, county and regional plans.
The actions by TxDOT and the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, for which a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued on August 25, 2015, and in other documents in the TxDOT administrative record. The EA, FONSI, and other documents in the administrative record file are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above. The EA and FONSI may also be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
This notice applies to all TxDOT decisions and Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109].
2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)].
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]; Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers), 23 U.S.C. 319.
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)]; Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712].
5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f)
6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)]; American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209].
7. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1251-1377]; Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) [16 U.S.C. 4601-4604]; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6)]; Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33 U.S.C. 401-406]; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271-1287]; Emergency Wetlands Resources Act [16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931]; TEA-21 Wetlands Mitigation [23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(m), 133(b)(11)]; Flood Disaster Protection Act [42 U.S.C. 4001-4128].
8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593, Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007, Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287, Preserve America; E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112, Invasive Species; E.O. 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.
The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 10 individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualifications standard concerning hearing for interstate drivers. The current regulation prohibits hearing impaired individuals from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. After notice and opportunity for public comment, the Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these drivers to operate property-carrying CMVs will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. The exemptions are valid for a 2-year period and may be renewed, and the exemptions preempt State laws and regulations.
The exemptions are effective September 21, 2015. The exemptions expire on September 21, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202)
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
FMCSA grants 10 individuals an exemption from § 391.41(b)(11) concerning hearing to enable them to operate property-carrying CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on the current medical literature and information and the “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety” (the 2008 Evidence Report) presented to FMCSA on August 26, 2008. The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the CDLIS,
On February 4, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 10 individuals (FR 80 6161; Docket number FMCSA-2015-02134). The comment period ended on March 6, 2015. In response to this notice, two comments were received; one in support of drivers wearing hearing aids while driving and one expressing safety concerns for the far reaching ramifications to the commercial driving industry of allowing deaf drivers to test, train and/or drive commercially. The Transportation Companies expressed concern for process by which exemptions are granted from parts of 49 CFR 391.41, the increased volume of exemptions, and the need to rely on scientific support as a basis for granting the exemptions. FMCSA acknowledges these concerns and may consider in the future, the initial steps to a formal rulemaking process to revise unnecessary physical qualification standards.
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, FMCSA grants exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to 10 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 10 drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) would have been considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they do not meet the hearing requirement. FMCSA has determined that the following 10 applicants should be granted an exemption:
Mr. Bertling, 58, holds Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Oregon.
Ms. Bergstrom, 37, holds an operator's license in Iowa.
Mr. Huey, 50, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Texas.
Mr. Javier, 24, holds an operator's license in New Jersey.
Mr. Langlois, 36, holds an operator's license in Ohio.
Mr. Lovley, 32, holds an operator's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Putman, 35, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Smith, 59, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Utah.
Mr. Soneson, 48, holds an operator's license in Ohio.
Mr. Warner, 50, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in New York.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. With the exemption, applicants can drive in
The Agency is granting exemptions from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), to 10 individuals based on an evaluation of each driver's safety experience. Safety analysis of information relating to these 10 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
FMCSA exempts the following 10 drivers for a period of 2 years from the physical qualification standard concerning hearing: Thomas J. Bertling (OR); Molly R. Bergstrom (IA); John Luegene Huey, Jr. (TX); Jesus L. Javier (NJ); Paul Robert Langlois (OH); Samuel E. Lovley (PA); Scott M. Putman (PA); Laird Lamont Smith (UT); Kirk A. Soneson (OH); and Christopher King Warner (NY).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for information.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval. The FMCSA requests approval to extend an ICR titled, “Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection.” The information collected will be used to help regulate motor carriers transporting household goods (HHG) for individual shippers. FMCSA invites public comment on the ICR.
We must receive your comments on or before
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2015-0255 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Kenneth Rodgers, Chief, Commercial Enforcement Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-0073; email
The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, Dec. 9, 1999) authorized the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to regulate household goods carriers engaged in interstate operations for individual shippers. In earlier legislation, Congress abolished the former Interstate Commerce Commission and transferred the Commission's jurisdiction over household goods transportation to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) (ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, Dec. 29 1995). Prior to FMCSA's establishment, the Secretary delegated this household goods jurisdiction to the Federal Highway Administration, FMCSA's predecessor organization within DOT.
The FMCSA has authority to regulate the overall commercial operations of the household goods industry under 49 U.S.C. 14104, “Household goods carrier operations.” This ICR includes the information collection requirements contained in title 49 CFR part 375, “Transportation of Household Goods in Interstate Commerce; Consumer Protection Regulations.” The information collected encompasses that which is generated, maintained, retained, disclosed, and provided to, or for, the agency under 49 CFR part 375.
Sections 4202 through 4216 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, Aug. 10, 2005) (SAFETEA-LU) amended various provisions of existing law regarding household goods transportation. It specifically addressed: Definitions (section 4202); payment of rates (section 4203); registration requirements for household goods motor carriers (section 4204); carrier operations (section 4205); enforcement of regulations (section 4206); liability of carriers under receipts and bills of lading (section 4207); arbitration requirements (section 4208); civil penalties for brokers and unauthorized transportation (section 4209); penalties for holding goods hostage (section 4210); consumer handbook (section 4211); release of broker information (section 4212); working group for Federal-State relations (section 4213); consumer complaint information (section 4214); review of liability of carriers (section 4215); and application of State laws (section 4216). The FMCSA regulations that set forth Federal requirements for movers that provide interstate transportation of household goods are found in 49 CFR part 375, “Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection Regulation.”
On July 16, 2012, FMCSA published a Direct Final Rule (DFR) titled, “Transportation of Household Goods in Interstate Commerce; Consumer Protection Regulations: Household Goods Motor Carrier Record Retention Requirements,” (77 FR 41699). The rule amended the regulations governing the period during which HHG motor carriers must retain documentation of an individual shipper's waiver of receipt of printed copies of consumer protection materials. This change harmonized the retention period with other document retention requirements applicable to HHG motor carriers. FMCSA also amended the regulations to clarify that a HHG motor carrier is not required to retain waiver documentation from any individual shippers for whom the carrier does not actually provide services.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 10 individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualifications standard concerning hearing for interstate drivers. The current regulation prohibits hearing impaired individuals from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. After notice and opportunity for public comment, the Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these drivers to operate property-carrying CMVs will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. The exemptions are valid for a 2-year period and may be renewed, and the exemptions preempt State laws and regulations.
The exemptions are effective
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
FMCSA grants 10 individuals an exemption from § 391.41(b)(11) concerning hearing to enable them to operate property-carrying CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on the current medical literature and information and the “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety” (the 2008 Evidence Report) presented to FMCSA on August 26, 2008. The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the CDLIS,
On July 17, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 10 individuals (FR 79 41720; Docket number FMCSA-2014-16800). The comment period ended on August 18, 2014. There were no comments in response to this notice.
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, FMCSA grants exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to 10 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 10 drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) would have been considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they do not meet the hearing requirement. FMCSA has determined that the following 10 applicants should be granted an exemption:
Mr. Beacham, 42, holds an operator's license in Maryland.
Mr. Carter, 23, holds an operator's license in Louisiana.
Mr. Gensmer, 29, holds an operator's license in Minnesota.
Mr. Godfrey, 41, holds an operator's license in Kentucky.
Mr. Katakurd, 40, holds an operator's license in Hawaii.
Mr. Mitchell, 36, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Alabama.
Mr. Parrish, 50, holds an operator's license in California.
Mr. Skelton, 36, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Texas.
Mr. Whitworth, 45, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Louisiana.
Mr. Shelander, 38, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Texas.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce. The driver must comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption. This includes reporting any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5 and reporting all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391.
The Agency is granting exemptions from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), to 10 individuals based on an evaluation of each driver's safety experience. Safety analysis of information relating to these 10 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
FMCSA exempts the following 10 drivers for a period of 2 years from the physical qualification standard
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 9 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The regulation and the associated advisory criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the “Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations” have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical examiner. The Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these CMV drivers will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. FMCSA grants exemptions that will allow these 9 individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The exemptions preempt State laws and regulations and may be renewed.
The exemptions are effective September 21, 2015. The exemptions expire on September 21, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001, or via email at
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
FMCSA grants 9 individuals an exemption from the regulatory requirement in § 391.41(b)(8), to allow these individuals who take anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s), the length of time elapsed since the individual's last seizure, and each individual's treatment regimen. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS)
In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, the Agency considered both current medical literature and information and the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP). The Agency gathered evidence for potential changes to the regulation previously at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) by conducting a comprehensive review of scientific literature that was compiled into the “
On October 15, 2007, the MEP issued the following recommended criteria for evaluating whether an individual with epilepsy or a seizure disorder should be allowed to operate a CMV.
•
•
FMCSA presented the MEP's findings and the
The Agency acknowledges the MRB's position on the issue but believes relevant current medical evidence supports a less conservative approach. The medical advisory criteria for epilepsy and other seizure or loss of consciousness episodes was based on the 1988 “Conference on Neurological Disorders and Commercial Drivers” (NITS Accession No. PB89-158950/AS). A copy of the report can be found in the docket referenced in this notice.
The MRB's recommendation treats all drivers who have experienced a seizure the same, regardless of individual medical conditions and circumstances. In addition, the recommendation to continue prohibiting drivers who are taking anti-seizure medication from operating a CMV in interstate commerce does not consider a driver's actual seizure history and time since the last seizure. The Agency has decided to use the 2007 MEP recommendations as the basis for evaluating applications for an exemption from the seizure regulation on an individual, case-by-case basis.
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, including a review of detailed follow-up information requested from each applicant, FMCSA is granting exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to 9 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 9 drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) would have been considered qualified physically to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they presently take or have recently stopped taking anti-seizure medication. For these 9 drivers, the primary obstacle to medical qualification was the FMCSA Advisory Criteria for Medical Examiners, based on the 1988 “Conference on Neurological Disorders and Commercial Drivers,” stating that a driver should be off anti-seizure medication in order to drive in interstate commerce. In fact, the Advisory Criteria have little if anything to do with the actual risk of a seizure and more to do with assumptions about individuals who are taking anti-seizure medication.
In addition to evaluating the medical status of each applicant, FMCSA evaluated the crash and violation data for the 9 drivers, some of whom currently drive a CMV in intrastate commerce. The CDLIS and MCMIS were searched for crash and violation data on the 9 applicants. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State licensing agency.
These exemptions are contingent on the driver maintaining a stable treatment regimen and remaining seizure-free during the 2-year exemption period. The exempted drivers must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free. The driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a medical examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5, following the FCMSA's regulations for the physical qualifications for CMV drivers.
FMCSA published a notice of receipt of application and requested public comment during a 30-day public comment period in a
On February 4, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 12 individuals (80 FR 6166; Docket number FMCSA-2015-02135). The comment period ended on March 6, 2015. Four commenters responded to this notice. Of the 12 applicants, three were denied. The Agency has determined that the following nine applicants should be granted an exemption:
Mr. Atkins is a 54 year-old driver in Oregon. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1980. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Atkins receiving an exemption.
Mr. Boogay is a 57 year-old class C CDL holder in New Jersey. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1989. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
Mr. Bohr is a 59 year-old class A CDL holder in Iowa. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1996. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Bohr receiving an exemption.
Mr. Bomgaars is a 66 year-old class A CDL holder in Iowa. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1963. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Bomgaars receiving an exemption.
Mr. Dixon is a 54 year-old class A CDL holder in Georgia. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2000. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Dixon receiving an exemption.
Mr. Griffith is a 43 year-old class A CDL holder in North Dakota. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1980. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Griffith receiving an exemption.
Mr. Rainer is a 41 year-old driver in Texas. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2006. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Rainer receiving an exemption.
Mr. Weymouth is a 48 year-old class A CDL holder in New Hampshire. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1986. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2010. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Weymouth receiving an exemption.
Mr. Wright is a 67 year-old driver in Kentucky. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2002. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Wright receiving an exemption.
In response to this notice, FMCSA received 4 comments. All commenters were in support of commercial driving for individuals with a history of seizure, who have been seizure free for over four or five years.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting the driver to driving in intrastate commerce.
The Agency is granting exemptions from the epilepsy standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), to 9 individuals based on a thorough evaluation of each driver's safety experience and medical condition. Safety analysis of information relating to these 9 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. By granting the exemptions, the interstate CMV industry will gain 9 highly trained and experienced drivers. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be valid for 2 years, with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
FMCSA exempts the following 9 drivers for a period of 2 years with annual medical certification required: Robert Elmer Atkins (OR); Ronald Boogay (NJ); Ronald Francis Bohr (IA); Earl Bernard Bomgaars (IA); Teddy Hugh Dixon (GA); John Griffith (ND); William Rainer, III (TX); Michael R. Weymouth (NH); and Everet Thomas Wright (KY) from the prohibition of CMV operations by persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or seizures. If the exemption is still in effect at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 8 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The regulation and the associated advisory criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the “Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations” have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from
Comments must be received on or before October 21, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2015-0118 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001, or via email at
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption for up to a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statutes allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 8 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), which applies to drivers who operate CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, in interstate commerce. Section 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
FMCSA provides medical advisory criteria for use by medical examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions should be certified to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce. The advisory criteria indicate that if an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the medical examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a 6-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Mr. Abel is a 53 year-old driver in Maryland. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2000. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Abel receiving an exemption.
Mr. Alegre is a 29 year-old class B CDL holder in New Jersey. He has a history of a single provoked seizure in 2014. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Alegre receiving an exemption.
Mr. Blosse is a 50 year-old driver in Virginia. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2000. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Blosse receiving an exemption.
Mr. Fryburg is a 30 year-old driver in Pennsylvania. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2004. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Fryburg receiving an exemption.
Mr. Hill is a 50 year-old driver in Texas. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2013. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Hill receiving an exemption.
Mr. Hunter is a 29 year-old class A CDL holder in Kentucky. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2012. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Hunter receiving an exemption.
Mr. Jones is a 42 year-old driver in Wisconsin. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2005. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2009. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Jones receiving an exemption.
Mr. Martens is a 44 year-old class B CDL holder in South Dakota. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1990. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Martens receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption applications described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated earlier in the notice.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 6 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The regulation and the associated advisory criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the “Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations” have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical examiner. The Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these CMV drivers will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. FMCSA grants exemptions that will allow these 6 individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The exemptions preempt State laws and regulations and may be renewed.
The exemptions are effective September 21, 2015. The exemptions expire on September 21, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001, or via email at
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations
FMCSA grants 6 individuals an exemption from the regulatory requirement in§ 391.41(b)(8), to allow these individuals who take anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s), the length of time elapsed since the individual's last seizure, and each individual's treatment regimen. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS)
In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, the Agency considered both current medical literature and information and the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP). The Agency previously gathered evidence for potential changes to the regulation at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) by conducting a comprehensive review of scientific literature that was compiled into the “
On October 15, 2007, the MEP issued the following recommended criteria for evaluating whether an individual with epilepsy or a seizure disorder should be allowed to operate a CMV.
•
•
FMCSA presented the MEP's findings and the
The Agency acknowledges the MRB's position on the issue but believes relevant current medical evidence supports a less conservative approach. The medical advisory criteria for epilepsy and other seizure or loss of consciousness episodes was based on the 1988 “Conference on Neurological Disorders and Commercial Drivers” (NITS Accession No. PB89-158950/AS). A copy of the report can be found in the docket referenced in this notice.
The MRB's recommendation treats all drivers who have experienced a seizure the same, regardless of individual medical conditions and circumstances. In addition, the recommendation to continue prohibiting drivers who are taking anti-seizure medication from operating a CMV in interstate commerce does not consider a driver's actual seizure history and time since the last seizure. The Agency has decided to use the 2007 MEP recommendations as the basis for evaluating applications for an
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, including a review of detailed follow-up information requested from each applicant, FMCSA is granting exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to 6 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 6 drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) would have been considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they presently take or have recently stopped taking anti-seizure medication. For these 6 drivers, the primary obstacle to medical qualification was the FMCSA Advisory Criteria for Medical Examiners, based on the 1988 “Conference on Neurological Disorders and Commercial Drivers,” stating that a driver should be off anti-seizure medication in order to drive in interstate commerce. In fact, the Advisory Criteria have little if anything to do with the actual risk of a seizure and more to do with assumptions about individuals who are taking anti-seizure medication.
In addition to evaluating the medical status of each applicant, FMCSA evaluated the crash and violation data for the 6 drivers, some of whom currently drive a CMV in intrastate commerce. The CDLIS and MCMIS were searched for crash and violation data on the 6 applicants. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State licensing agency.
These exemptions are contingent on the driver maintaining a stable treatment regimen and remaining seizure-free during the 2-year exemption period. The exempted drivers must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free. The driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a medical examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5, following the FCMSA's regulations for the physical qualifications for CMV drivers.
FMCSA published a notice of receipt of application and requested public comment during a 30-day public comment period in a
On January 22, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 15 individuals (80 FR 3309; Docket number FMCSA-2015-01012). The comment period ended on February 23, 2015. Of the 15 applicants, nine were denied. Five commenters responded to this notice. A discussion of the comments is presented later in this document. The Agency has determined that the following six applicants should be granted an exemption.
Mr. Brown is a 69 year-old class C CDL holder in Arizona. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1999. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Brown receiving an exemption.
Mr. Curtis is a 52 year-old class A CDL holder in Oregon. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2004. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Curtis receiving an exemption.
Mr. Durkee is a 64 year-old driver in Wisconsin. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1977. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Durkee receiving an exemption.
Mr. Eyerly is a 59 year-old driver in Pennsylvania. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1981. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2002. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician.
Mr. Hineline is a 55 year-old class A CDL holder in Washington. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1979. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1988. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Hineline receiving an exemption.
Mr. Reineke is a 44 year-old class A CDL holder in Ohio. He has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 2005. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Reineke receiving an exemption.
In response to this notice, FMCSA received 5 comments. The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) submitted a comment stating, “ATA believes that the increased volume of applications for exemption from parts of 49 CFR 391.41 is cause for concern. The granting of such a large number of exemptions dilutes the physical qualification standards and constitutes regulation through exemption. FMCSA must begin a dialogue on the need and effectiveness of these standards. If it is determined that these standards need to be altered, it must be done through the formal rulemaking process.” FMCSA acknowledges ATA's concerns and may consider in the future, the initial steps to a formal rulemaking process to revise physical qualification standards. An anonymous commenter submitted a comment in support of an individual with a history of seizure to drive commercially. Rebecca Shuman believes the federal epilepsy regulation should be similar to California's regulation in an attempt to balance safety and the right of the driver to earn a living. Asad Aftab and Rudy Bieteler support having a federal epilepsy standard to ensure the safe operation of CMVs.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce
The Agency is granting exemptions from the epilepsy standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), to 6 individuals based on a thorough evaluation of each driver's safety experience and medical condition. Safety analysis of information relating to these 6 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. By granting the exemptions, the interstate CMV industry will gain 6 highly trained and experienced drivers. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be valid for 2 years, with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
FMCSA exempts the following 6 drivers for a period of 2 years with annual medical certification required: Dennis Brown (AZ); Grover Curtis (OR); Harold Durkee (WI); Timothy Eyerly (PA); Denton Hineline (WA); and Benjamin Reineke (OH) from the prohibition of CMV operations by persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or seizures. If the exemption is still in effect at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 30 individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualifications standard concerning hearing for interstate drivers. The current regulation prohibits hearing impaired individuals from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. After notice and opportunity for public comment, the Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these drivers to operate property-carrying CMVs will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. The exemptions are valid for a 2-year period and may be renewed, and the exemptions preempt State laws and regulations.
The exemptions are effective September 21, 2015. The exemptions expire on September 21, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
FMCSA grants 30 individuals an exemption from § 391.41(b)(11) concerning hearing to enable them to operate property-carrying CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on the current medical literature and information and the “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety” (the 2008 Evidence Report) presented to FMCSA on August 26, 2008. The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the CDLIS,
On April 7, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, FMCSA grants exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to 30 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 30 drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) would have been considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they do not meet the hearing requirement. FMCSA has determined that the following 30 applicants should be granted an exemption:
Mr. Boatman, 37, holds an operator's license in Arizona.
Mr. Crowe, 50, holds an operator's license in Missouri.
Mr. Cannon, 47, holds an operator's license in Missouri.
Mr. Cater, 54, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Tennessee.
Ms. Crews, 44, holds an operator's license in Florida.
Mr. Cribb, 36, holds an operator's license in South Carolina.
Mr. Darnell, 40, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Arizona.
Mr. Dickson, 55, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Eller, 50, holds an operator's license in North Carolina.
Mr. Fellows, 22, holds an operator's license in New York.
Mr. Grady, 46, holds a Class B commercial driver's license (CDL) in Colorado.
Ms. Haselhorst, 27, holds an operator's license in Nebraska.
Mr. Hill, 31, holds an operator's license in Georgia.
Mr. Gensler, 36, holds an operator's license in Ohio.
Mr. Lipyanic, 49, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Lloyd, 41, holds an operator's license in Ohio.
Ms. Maginity, 23, holds an operator's license in Iowa.
Mr. Malley, 60, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Missouri.
Ms. Maloney, 26, holds an operator's license in New York.
Ms. Marcus, 42, holds an operator's license in Michigan.
Mr. Mason, 33, holds an operator's license in California.
Mr. Matchett, 32, holds an operator's license in New York.
Ms. Meadows, 57, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Georgia.
Mr. Moffett, 23, holds an operator's license in Georgia.
Mr. Saive, 29, holds a Class B commercial driver's license (CDL) in Ohio.
Mr. Shores, 47, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in North Carolina.
Mr. Veach, 32, holds an operator's license in Illinois.
Mr. Whitman, 39, holds an operator's license in New Jersey.
Mr. Whittaker, 44, holds a Chauffeur's license in Indiana.
Mr. Whittington, 48, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Michigan.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce. The driver must comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption. This includes reporting any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5 and reporting all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391.
The Agency is granting exemptions from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), to 30 individuals based on an evaluation of each driver's safety experience. Safety analysis of information relating to these 30 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the
FMCSA exempts the following 30 drivers for a period of 2 years from the physical qualification standard concerning hearing: Neal Everett Boatman, Jr. (AZ); Herbert Dean Crowe (MO); David Keith Cannon (MO); Bryant Cater (TN); Frankye D. Crews (FL); Justin Craig Cribb (SC); William Reeder Darnell (AZ); Mark Dickson (TX); Kelly Gene Eller (NC); Elliot David Fellows (NY); David H. Grady (CO); Alissa Haselhorst (NE); Nathan John Hill (GA); Jason R. Gensler (OH); Thomas P. Lipyanic, Jr. (PA); Brian L. Lloyd (OH); Kelsey Rae Maginity (IA); Donald B. Malley (MO); Courtney Maloney (NY); Amy Elizabeth Marcus (MI); Jonython A. Mason (CA); Scott Matchett (NY); Kathy Ann Meadows (GA); Devin Jamal Moffett (GA); Anthony Joseph Saive (OH); David W. Shores (NC); Jonathan P. Veach (IL); Michael Whitman (NJ); Richard E. Whittaker (IN); amd Brian David Whittington (MI).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that 14 individuals have applied for a medical exemption from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). In accordance with the statutory requirements concerning applications for exemptions, FMCSA requests public comments on these requests. The statute and implementing regulations concerning exemptions require that exemptions must provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than if they were not granted. If the Agency determines the exemptions would satisfy the statutory requirements and decides to grant theses requests after reviewing the public comments submitted in response to this notice, the exemptions would enable these 14 individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before October 21, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0387 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001,
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has authority to grant exemptions from many of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), as amended by Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 107, 401). FMCSA has published in 49 CFR part 381, subpart C final rules implementing the statutory changes in its exemption procedures made by section 4007, 69 FR 51589 (August 20, 2004).
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear
FMCSA also issues instructions for completing the medical examination report and includes advisory criteria on the report itself to provide guidance for medical examiners in applying the hearing standard. See 49 CFR 391.43(f). The current advisory criteria for the hearing standard include a reference to a report entitled “Hearing Disorders and Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers” prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, FMCSA's predecessor, in 1993.
FMCSA requests comments from all interested parties on whether a driver who cannot meet the hearing standard should be permitted to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Further, the Agency asks for comments on whether a driver who cannot meet the hearing standard should be limited to operating only certain types of vehicles in interstate commerce, for example, vehicles without air brakes. The statute and implementing regulations concerning exemptions require that the Agency request public comments on all applications for exemptions. The Agency is also required to make a determination that an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, go to
Mr. Burley, 44, holds an operator's license in Colorado.
Ms. Campbell, 39, holds a class A CDL in Texas.
Mr. Campos, 43, holds a class A CDL in California.
Mr. Carter, 58, holds a class B CDL in Maryland.
Mr. Curran, 41, holds an operator's license in Florida.
Ms. Dalen, 41, holds an operator's license in Nebraska.
Mr. Hanson, 25, holds an operator's license in Wyoming.
Mr. Homan, 35, holds an operator's license in Illinois.
Mr. Jackson, 42, holds an operator's license in Arizona.
Mr. Kaimuloa, 47, holds an operator's license in Hawaii.
Mr. Kielczewski, 43, holds an operator's license in Rhode Island.
Mr. Knipp, 32, holds an operator's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. McEntire, 42, holds an operator's license in Georgia.
Ms. Richardson-Nelson, 56, holds an operator's license in Nebraska.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments received before the close of business October 21, 2015. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) hereby announces that it is seeking renewal of the following currently approved information collection
Comments must be received no later than November 20, 2015.
Submit written comments on any or all of the following proposed activities by mail to Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB Grant Awards and Cooperative Agreement.” Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via facsimile to (202) 493-6170, or via email to Ms. Toone at
Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days notice to the public for comment on information collection activities before seeking approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites interested respondents to comment on the following summary of proposed information collection activities regarding (i) whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (iii) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Below is a brief summary of the information collection activities that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
FRA administers award agreements for both construction and non-construction projects that will result in service benefits or other tangible improvements in rail corridors. These projects include completion of preliminary engineering, environmental research and development, final design, and construction.
To ensure accountability of Federal award recipients through performance and results, including expenditures in support of agreed-upon activities and allowable costs outlined in a FRA Notice of Grant Award (NGA), FRA requires systematic and uniform collection and submission of information, as approved by the OMB. Included in this information collection are reports and documentation mandated by OMB for completion, as well as additional resources to compile evidence relevant to addressing FRA's important policy challenges, promoting cost-effectiveness in FRA programs, and providing effective oversight of programmatic and financial performance. This justification draws on innovative FRA program designs to use sophisticated practices in delivering Federal financial assistance and encourage continuous improvements in service delivery.
FRA issues and manages awards in compliance with Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Grants and Agreements. This justification includes one document package for collection over the entire lifecycle of the award process, in adherence to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (78 FR 78589, Dec. 26, 2013; 79 FR 75871, Dec. 19, 2014). All non-research awards are subject to the application, reporting, closeout, and other processes described in this justification.
Additionally, the collection detailed in this justification represents a combination of previous FRA collection requests, including: OMB Control Number 2130-0578, OMB Control Number 2130-0580, OMB Control Number 2130-0584, and OMB Control Number 0587. Combining these collections under a new collection enables FRA to consolidate documentation under one collection, which allows for efficiency and provides a uniform period until expiration of this justification request.
Reporting Burden:
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Request for public comments.
NHTSA's ability to identify and define safety-related motor vehicle defects relies in large part on manufacturers' self-reporting. However, although federal regulations may require them to report certain information to NHTSA, manufacturers do not always do so, or do not do so in a timely manner. Additionally, the information a manufacturer is required to report varies greatly depending on the product and company size and purpose. Given these constraints, safety-related information developed or discovered in private litigation is an important resource for NHTSA.
This proposed Enforcement Guidance Bulletin sets forth NHTSA's current thinking on this topic, and guiding principles and best practices to be utilized in the context of private litigation. To the extent protective orders, settlement agreements, or other confidentiality provisions prohibit information obtained in private litigation from being transmitted to NHTSA, such limitations are contrary to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, its state corollaries, and sound principles of public policy. Although such restrictions are generally prohibited by applicable rules and law, the Agency recommends that litigants include a specific provision in any protective order or settlement agreement that provides for disclosure of relevant motor vehicle safety information to NHTSA, regardless of any other restrictions on the disclosure or dissemination of such information.
This notice solicits comments from the public, from counsel, and from other interested parties concerning this proposed enforcement guidance, and best practices to be followed by litigants in private litigation regarding protective orders and settlement agreements that contain confidentiality provisions limiting disclosure of safety-related information.
All comments should be submitted early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than October 19, 2015.
You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
Kara Fischer, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-111, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-366-8726).
In this notice, NHTSA has begun assembling for guidance and informative purposes an Enforcement Guidance Bulletin which sets forth guiding principles and best practices for private litigants utilizing protective orders and settlement agreements with confidentiality provisions. NHTSA is not establishing a binding set of rules on best practices, or even suggesting that a single set of best practices would apply in all situations. The Agency fully realizes that best practices may vary widely depending on circumstance, and
However, since NHTSA recognizes the public interest in this topic, we solicit public comment before issuing a final “Enforcement Guidance Bulletin” document. Commenters who recommend specific best practices should be careful to address the practical impact that those practices may have on individuals and entities of differing size, and the relative costs and benefits of implementing various practices. After receiving comments, we will issue a subsequent notice delineating a final Enforcement Guidance Bulletin for informative purposes. We will also post the Enforcement Guidance Bulletin on the Agency's Web site for easy reference.
In light of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes the following Enforcement Guidance for private litigants pertaining to the use of confidentiality provisions in protective orders and settlement agreements:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA” or “the Agency”) is tasked with, among other things, setting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (“FMVSS”), identifying and ensuring the remedy of safety-related defects, and monitoring and enforcing compliance with these standards to safeguard the well-being of the American public. The only way the Agency can fully achieve these objectives is if it has the necessary information within its grasp, including information discovered or identified in private litigation.
NHTSA's ability to identify and define safety-related motor vehicle defects relies in large part on timely and accurate reporting by manufacturers, suppliers, and various parties throughout the industry, whether by statutory or regulatory requirement or pursuant to compulsory process. Although federal law may require industry participants to report certain information to NHTSA, they do not always do so, or do not do so in a timely manner. Additionally, the type of information an industry participant is required to report varies greatly depending on the product and company size and purpose. While certain entities are required to report both deaths and injuries resulting from the use of their products, others only must report deaths. In those cases, in the absence of a fatal incident a potentially defective product may not come across NHTSA's radar until dozens, if not hundreds, of people have sustained serious injury—if it ever reaches NHTSA at all.
Given these constraints, safety-related information developed or discovered in private litigation is an important resource for NHTSA. Yet confidentiality restrictions imposed as part of a protective order or settlement agreement in private litigation—whether court-sanctioned or privately negotiated—often prevent parties from providing information about potentially dangerous products to the Agency. As many scholarly articles have noted, as has history has borne out, such restrictions have kept critical safety information out of the hands of both regulators and the public. As a matter of law and sound public policy, NHTSA cannot countenance this situation.
There is no doubt that confidentiality provisions, protective orders, and the sealing of cases are appropriate litigation tools in some circumstances. In most instances, however, the interests of public health and safety trump any confidentiality interests. In matters that concern the safety of the American driving public and pedestrians, it is important that entities and individuals are not prevented from providing relevant information to the very Agency tasked with ensuring that safety.
To the extent protective orders, settlement agreements, or other confidentiality provisions prohibit vehicle safety-related information from being transmitted to NHTSA, such limitations are contrary to established principles of public policy and law, including Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its state corollaries which require a showing of good cause to impose confidentiality. The recent General Motors ignition switch and Takata airbag recalls are but two examples of how vital early identification of motor vehicle risks or defects is for the safety and welfare of the American public.
To further this important public policy, the Agency encourages and recommends that parties include a provision in any protective order or settlement agreement that—despite whatever other restrictions on confidentiality are imposed—specifically allows for disclosure of relevant motor vehicle safety information to NHTSA and other applicable government authorities.
“Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case.”
General allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, however, are insufficient to warrant such an order.
Even if a court concludes that such harm will result from disclosure, it still must proceed to balance “the public and private interests to decide whether a protective order is necessary.”
(1) Whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests; (2) whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose; (3) whether disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment; (4) whether confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health and safety; (5) whether the sharing of information among litigants will promote fairness and efficiency; (6) whether a party benefitting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and (7) whether the case involves issues important to the public.
The public's interest in access to court records is strongest when the records concern public health or safety.
A number of states have enacted “Sunshine in Litigation” acts, which thrust the interests of public health and safety into the forefront by preventing parties from concealing safety hazards through settlement agreements or protective orders. Some, such as Florida, broadly forbid courts from entering protective orders that may have the “purpose or effect of concealing a public hazard or any information concerning a public hazard” or that “may be useful to members of the public in protecting themselves from injury.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 69.081 (West 2015). Others, such as Texas, establish a presumption that court records—including all documents filed with the court, unfiled settlement agreements, and unfiled discovery documents “concerning matters that have a probable adverse effect upon the general public health or safety”—are open to the general public; records may be sealed only upon a showing that there is a specific, serious, and substantial interest in nondisclosure which clearly outweighs the presumption of public access and any probable effect on public health or safety. Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a.
A federal corollary introduced on May 14, 2015, currently pending before the House of Representatives, H.R. 2336 (114th Congress, 2015-2017), would create a presumption against protective orders and the sealing of settlements and cases “in which the pleadings state facts that are relevant to the protection of public health or safety.” The presumption would control unless a party asks a judge to find that a specific and substantial interest in maintaining secrecy outweighs the public health and safety interest and that the order is no broader than necessary to protect the privacy interest asserted.
Several states have taken a broader approach, enacting statutes and court rules to address the question of whether or not courts should enforce confidentiality agreements, regardless of the subject matter. The common theme of these statutes is a balancing of interests. For example, drawing upon federal precedent requiring consideration of the public interest at stake, Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32 directs courts considering shielding requests to first determine whether the interest in privacy or public disclosure predominates and to “fashion the least restrictive exception from disclosure consistent with privacy interests.” Idaho R. Admin. 32(f).
Basic contract principles also dictate that the public health and safety concern should be of paramount significance in drafting and approving protective orders and settlement agreements. While parties are generally free to contract as they see fit, “courts will not hesitate to declare void as against public policy contractual provisions which clearly tend to the injury of the public in some way.” 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 281 (2015) (internal citations omitted);
“While the term `public policy' lacks precise definition, . . . it may be stated generally as a legal principle which holds that no one may lawfully do that which has a tendency to injure the public welfare. . . .”
In fact, the Florida Sunshine in Litigation Act specifically codifies this concept: “Any portion of an agreement or contract which has the purpose or effect of concealing a public hazard, any information concerning a public hazard, or any information which may be useful to members of the public in protecting themselves from injury which may result from the public hazard, is void, contrary to public policy, and may not be enforced.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 69.081(4).
The good cause requirements found in Rule 26 and related state provisions, and the doctrines underlying NHTSA's own regulations all advance the unassailable public policy of maintaining and preserving the health and welfare of the public. This strong policy has been realized and enforced by the refusal of many courts and litigants to engage in protective orders or settlement agreements that keep regulators and the public in the dark about potential safety hazards.
Consistent with the foregoing legal and policy background, it is NHTSA's position that protective orders and settlement agreements should not be used to shield critical safety information from the Agency, either intentionally or unintentionally. This is not to say that parties should not enter into these agreements. To the contrary, these tools are often necessary to promote full and complete disclosure, to prevent abuses of the discovery process, and to protect legitimate privacy and proprietary interests. However, as explained above, they cannot be used to preclude disclosure of safety-related information from regulatory agencies and other government authorities. To do so is contrary to law and the underlying policies inherent in Rule 26 and state corollaries, and against sound public policy.
NHTSA recommends that all parties include a provision in any protective order or settlement agreement that—despite whatever other restrictions on confidentiality are imposed, and whether entered into by consent or judicial fiat—specifically allows for disclosure of relevant motor vehicle safety information to NHTSA and other applicable authorities. Such a provision could be stated generically, providing that nothing in the order or agreement shall be construed to prohibit either party from disclosing information to a regulatory agency or governmental entity who has an interest in the subject matter of the underlying suit. For example, the provision could state that “discovery material may only be disclosed to . . . governmental entities with an interest in the public safety hazards involving [description of product/vehicle].” Or, it could specifically address NHTSA's interest, as contemplated by the recent NHTSA Consent Order requiring Chrysler to “develop and implement a plan ensuring that, in safety-related litigation, FCA US uses its best efforts to include in any protective order, settlement agreement, or equivalent, a provision that explicitly allows FCA US to provide information and documents to NHTSA.”
Whatever the language, confidentiality agreements and protective orders should not be utilized to prevent the parties from producing information that implicates public safety to the very entity charged with ensuring and protecting that safety. Instead, such orders and agreements should clearly authorize and facilitate the disclosure of safety-related information to NHTSA. Such a provision is consistent with, and in some cases mandated by, federal and state statutory schemes and regulations and applicable case law, and is wholly in line with principles of sound public policy.
49 U.S.C. 30101,
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice 2009-26, Build America Bonds and Direct Payment Subsidy Implementation.
Written comments should be received on or before November 20, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Martha Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of this regulation should be directed to Kerry Dennis, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8882, Credit for Employer-Provided Child Care Facilities and Services.
Written comments should be received on or before November 20, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Martha Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
This document updates the acute inpatient and the skilled nursing facility/sub-acute inpatient facility charges. The updated charges are based on the 2016 Medicare severity diagnosis related groups (MS-DRGs).
Romona Greene, Chief Business Office (10NB), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 382-2521. (This is not a toll free number.)
Section 17.101 of Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets forth the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical regulations concerning “Reasonable Charges” for medical care or services provided or furnished by VA to a veteran: For a nonservice-connected disability for which the veteran is entitled to care (or the payment of expenses of care) under a health plan contract; for a nonservice-connected disability incurred incident to the Veteran's employment and covered under a worker's compensation law or plan that provides reimbursement or indemnification for such care and services; or, for a nonservice-connected disability incurred as a result of a motor vehicle accident in a State that requires automobile accident reparations insurance. The methodologies for establishing billed amounts for several types of charges are found in 38 CFR 17.101; however, this notice will only address the acute inpatient and the skilled nursing facility/sub-acute inpatient facility charges.
Based on the methodologies set forth in 38 CFR 17.101(b), this notice updates the acute inpatient facility charges that were based on the 2015 Medicare severity diagnosis related groups (MS-DRGs). Acute inpatient facility charges by MS-DRGs are posted on the Internet site of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Chief Business Office, currently at
Also, this document updates the skilled nursing facility/sub-acute inpatient facility all-inclusive per diem charge using the methodologies set forth in 38 CFR 17.101(c) and this charge is adjusted by a geographic area factor that is based on the location where the care is provided. See Table “N” Acute Inpatient and Table “O” Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) for the geographic area factors on the VHA Chief Business Office Web site under the v3.16 link in the “Reasonable Charges Data Tables” section, which are not being updated by this notice. The skilled nursing facility/sub-acute inpatient facility per diem charge is posted on the Internet site of the VHA's Chief Business Office, currently at
The charges in this notice for acute inpatient and skilled nursing facility/sub-acute inpatient facility services are effective October 1, 2015.
This notice is retaining the table designations used for acute inpatient facility charges by MS-DRGs, which is posted on the Internet site of the VHA Chief Business Office, currently at
The list of data sources presented in Supplementary Table 1 will be posted on the Internet site of the VHA Chief Business Office, currently at
We have also updated the list of VA medical facility locations. As a reminder, in Supplementary Table 3, posted on the Internet site of the VHA Chief Business Office, currently at
Consistent with VA's regulations, the updated data tables and supplementary tables containing the changes described in this notice will be posted on the Internet site of the VHA Chief Business Office, “Reasonable Charges (Rates) Information” Web page currently at
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 15, 2015, for publication.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, the Commission on Care gives notice that it will meet on Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at the Capital Hilton, 1001 16th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036. The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5:30 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Commission, as described in section 202 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (VACAA), is to examine the access of Veterans to health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and strategically examine how best to organize the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), locate health care resources, and deliver health care to Veterans during the next 20 years. In undertaking this assessment, the Commission will evaluate and assess the results of the Independent Assessment conducted by CMS Alliance to Modernize Healthcare (CAMH) in accordance with section 201 of VACAA.
On October 6, the Commission will hear from VHA and other Department officials as well as other experts on the feasibility, advisability, and cost implications of recommendations in the CAMH Independent Assessment.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, the public may submit written statements for the Commission's review to Sharon Gilles, Designated Federal Officer, Commission on Care, 1575 I (Eye) Street NW., Suite 240, Washington, DC 20005, or email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education will meet on October 21-22, 2015 at the American Council on Education (ACE) located at One Dupont Circle, Washington, DC 20004. On October 21, the meeting will be held in Conference Rooms A&B located on floor 1B. On October 22, the meeting will be held in the Kellogg Room on the 8th floor. The meeting session begins at 8:00 a.m. and ends at 5:00 p.m. on both days. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of education and training programs for Veterans, Servicepersons, Reservists, and Dependents of Veterans under Chapters 30, 32, 33, 35, and 36 of title 38, and Chapter 1606 of title 10, United States Code.
The purpose of the meeting is to assist in the evaluation of existing GI Bill programs and services, review recent legislative and administrative changes to GI Bill benefits, and submit their recommendations to the Secretary.
On October 21st, the Committee will receive presentations about the administration of VA's education and training programs. Oral statements will be heard from 3:45 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
On October 22nd, the Committee will review and summarize issues raised throughout the meeting and discuss Committee work groups and next steps.
The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Mr. Barrett Y. Bogue, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration (223D), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420 or via email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War (FPOW), previously scheduled to be held at the Audie Murphy VA Medical Center, 7400 Merton Minter Blvd., San Antonio, TX, on October 5-7, 2015,
For more information, please contact Mr. Eric Robinson, Designated Federal Officer at (202) 443-6016 or via email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.2., that the MyVA Advisory Committee (MVAC) will meet October 14 and 15, 2015 at the Department of Veterans Affairs, James A. Haley Veterans Hospital, 13000 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612, and the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital Primary Care Annex, 13515 Lake Terrace Lane, Tampa, FL 33637.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary, through the Executive Director, My VA Task Force Office regarding the My VA initiative and VA's ability to rebuild trust with Veterans and other stakeholders, improve service delivery with a focus on Veteran outcomes, and set the course for longer-term excellence and reform of VA.
On October 14 from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., the Committee will convene a closed session in order to protect patient privacy as the Committee tours the VA Sunshine Healthcare Network, Patient
On October 15, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., the Committee will meet at the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital Primary Care Annex, 13515 Lake Terrace Lane, Tampa, FL 33673, to discuss and recommend areas for improvement on VA's work to date, plans for the future, and integration of the MyVA efforts. This session is open to the public. No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, the public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Debra Walker, Designated Federal Officer, MyVA Program Management Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, 1800 G Street NW., Room 880-40, Washington, DC 20420, or email at
Because the meeting will be held in a Government building, anyone attending must be prepared to show a valid photo government issued ID. Please allow 15 minutes before the meeting begins for this process.
Federal Trade Commission.
Commission policy statement.
The Federal Trade Commission has issued a Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding “Unfair Methods of Competition” Under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The Statement describes the underlying antitrust principles that guide the Commission's application of its statutory authority to take action against “unfair methods of competition” prohibited by Section 5 of the FTC Act but not necessarily by the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act.
The Commission announced the issuance of the Statement on August 13, 2015.
Donald S. Clark, Secretary, (202-326-2514), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act declares “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce” to be unlawful. 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1). Section 5's ban on unfair methods of competition encompasses not only those acts and practices that violate the Sherman or Clayton Act but also those that contravene the spirit of the antitrust laws and those that, if allowed to mature or complete, could violate the Sherman or Clayton Act.
Congress chose not to define the specific acts and practices that constitute unfair methods of competition in violation of Section 5, recognizing that application of the statute would need to evolve with changing markets and business practices. Instead, it left the development of Section 5 to the Federal Trade Commission as an expert administrative body, which would apply the statute on a flexible case-by-case basis, subject to judicial review. This statement is intended to provide a framework for the Commission's exercise of its “standalone” Section 5 authority to address acts or practices that are anticompetitive but may not fall within the scope of the Sherman or Clayton Act.
In deciding whether to challenge an act or practice as an unfair method of competition in violation of Section 5 on a standalone basis, the Commission adheres to the following principles:
• The Commission will be guided by the public policy underlying the antitrust laws, namely, the promotion of consumer welfare;
• the act or practice will be evaluated under a framework similar to the rule of reason, that is, an act or practice challenged by the Commission must cause, or be likely to cause, harm to competition or the competitive process, taking into account any associated cognizable efficiencies and business justifications; and
• the Commission is less likely to challenge an act or practice as an unfair method of competition on a standalone basis if enforcement of the Sherman or Clayton Act is sufficient to address the competitive harm arising from the act or practice.
By direction of the Commission, with Chairwoman Ramirez and Commissioner Brill, Commissioner Wright, and Commissioner McSweeny voting in the affirmative, and Commissioner Ohlhausen dissenting.
The Federal Trade Commission was created in 1914 and vested with enforcement authority over “unfair methods of competition” under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
In describing the principles and overarching analytical framework that guide the Commission's application of Section 5, our statement affirms that Section 5 is aligned with the other antitrust laws, which have evolved over time and are guided by the goal of promoting consumer welfare and informed by economic analysis. The result of this evolution is the modern “rule of reason.”
In antitrust jurisprudence, “reasonableness” sums up the judgment that behavior is consistent with the antitrust laws. A monopolist acting reasonably does not violate Sherman Act § 2. Reasonable collaboration among competitors does not violate Sherman Act § 1. Although reasonableness is usually judged case by case, it is sometimes made for a class of conduct, such as price fixing, which is then said to be intrinsically or “per se” unlawful. Thus, per se rules also derive from judgments about reasonableness, albeit for a type of behavior rather than for a particular case. Even under the Clayton Act, where decisions about tying, exclusive dealing, and mergers are seldom phrased in reasonableness terms, the application of those statutes depends on the same elements that define “reasonableness.”
VII Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1500 (3d ed. 2010).
There has been much thoughtful dialogue inside and outside of the agency over the course of the last century about the precise contours of Section 5's prohibition against unfair methods of competition.
I appreciate the effort to issue some form of guidance on the scope of Section 5 of the FTC Act's prohibition of “unfair methods of competition” (UMC).
First, the content of today's policy statement is seriously lacking. Unlike the detailed analysis in our policy statements on Section 5's prohibition of “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,”
To understand the impact of these deficiencies, it is instructive to consider, for example, the basic facts in the Commission's 1980 defeat in
Turning to the substance of the brief statement, if the Commission is going to issue a policy statement in this controversial area, it should provide meaningful guidance to those subject to our jurisdiction. This statement, however, provides no such guidance. Although no policy statement can anticipate all issues or questions that are likely to arise in the enforcement of a statute, this statement raises many more questions than it answers.
For example, to what extent will the Commission be “guided by the public policy underlying the antitrust laws”? In what way does “a framework similar to the rule of reason” differ from a traditional rule of reason analysis? Does “taking into account any associated cognizable efficiencies” mean the Commission will actually balance any such efficiencies against the alleged harms, or is there some other formula anticipated by the majority? Further, given the statement's embrace of incipiency as a guiding principle, at what point are harms or efficiencies measured? At what market share should a firm without monopoly power be concerned about triggering an incipient violation through its otherwise lawful conduct? What factors will the Commission consider in deciding whether to pursue under Section 5 conduct that it considers insufficiently addressed by the antitrust laws?
Although short on details and constraints, one of the few guiding principles included in the statement is the pronouncement that Section 5 covers conduct that “contravenes the spirit of the antitrust laws” or which, “if allowed to mature or complete, could violate” the antitrust laws. These two extremely broad characterizations of the scope of Section 5 contribute to the vagueness of this statement.
The statement also explicitly permits the Commission to pursue conduct under Section 5 in the absence of substantial harm to competition.
Thus, the possibilities for expansive use of Section 5 under this policy statement appear vast. The majority's reading of Section 5 could easily accommodate a host of controversial theories pursued or considered by the Commission over the past four decades, including breach of standard-setting commitments, loyalty discounts, facilitating practices, conscious parallelism, business torts, incipient violations of the antitrust laws, and unfair competition through violation of various laws outside the antitrust context.
To provide certainty regarding future enforcement under Section 5, a Commission policy statement must constrain the agency in some meaningful way. In truth, the open-ended “similar to the rule of reason” framework—to the extent I understand how it may be applied—does not seem to differ meaningfully from the existing case-by-case approach heretofore favored by a majority of the Commission. Indeed, my experience as a Commissioner leads me to believe that my colleagues, who have diverse views about antitrust law, would apply this policy statement to reflect these significant differences. No interpretation of the policy statement by a single Commissioner, no matter how thoughtful, will bind this or any future Commission to greater limits on Section 5 UMC enforcement than what is in this exceedingly brief, highly general statement.
Although some may argue that the courts will be an adequate check on this authority, many commenters have raised concerns about how frequently the FTC settles Section 5 cases and how infrequently courts review our UMC enforcement.
The effect of this expansive policy statement also raises issues for our dual antitrust enforcement framework. Principles of fairness and predictability require that divergence in liability standards between the two agencies resulting from enforcement of Section 5 be minimal.
In addition, the lack of internal deliberation and consultation surrounding this policy statement—as opposed to the topic of Section 5 more generally—is unfortunate.
Finally, I disagree with the view that having an expansive UMC policy statement is better than having no statement at all. Arming the FTC staff with this sweeping new policy statement is likely to embolden them to explore the limits of UMC in conduct and merger investigations. The majority is also likely to pursue new UMC enforcement, else why bother to put out a statement with so little internal deliberation and no provision for public input? I fear that this will ultimately lead to more, not less, uncertainty and burdens for the business community.
I would prefer that any Section 5 policy statement be put out for public comment before adoption and include, among other things: (1) A substantial harm requirement; (2) a disproportionate harm test; (3) a stricter standard for pursuing conduct already addressed by the antitrust laws; (4) a commitment to minimize FTC-DOJ conflict; (5) reliance on robust economic evidence on the practice at issue and exploration of available non-enforcement tools prior to taking any enforcement action; and (6) a commitment generally to avoid pursuing the same conduct as both an unfair method of competition and an unfair or deceptive act or practice.
For all of these reasons, I dissent from the issuance of this policy statement.
| 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 |