| Page Range | 58195-58334 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 58195 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International, HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 0, Revision 1 | |
| 80 FR 58317 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58270 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Evaluation of the Enhancing Diversity of the NIH-Funded Workforce Program (NIGMS) | |
| 80 FR 58300 - Scope of the Copyright Royalty Judges' Continuing Jurisdiction | |
| 80 FR 58234 - Final Waiver and Extension of the Project Period for the Literacy Information and Communication System Regional Professional Development Centers | |
| 80 FR 58283 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-019 Payroll, Personnel, and Time and Attendance Records System of Records | |
| 80 FR 58289 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-008 Accounts Receivable System of Records | |
| 80 FR 58286 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-007 Accounts Payable System of Records | |
| 80 FR 58276 - Ideation Prize Competition | |
| 80 FR 58280 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-010 Asset Management Records System of Records | |
| 80 FR 58333 - Proposed Collection of Information: Affidavit by Individual Surety | |
| 80 FR 58332 - Proposed Collection of Information: Affidavit of Forgery for United States Bonds/Notes | |
| 80 FR 58332 - Proposed Collection of Information: Description of United States Savings Bonds Series HH/H and Description of United States Bonds/Notes | |
| 80 FR 58330 - Proposed Collection of Information: Claim for Relief on Account of Loss, Theft, or Destruction of U.S. Registered Securities | |
| 80 FR 58331 - Proposed Collection of Information: Special Form of Request for Payment of US Savings and Retirement Securities Where Use of a Detached Request Is Authorized | |
| 80 FR 58219 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures; Correction | |
| 80 FR 58232 - Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a Permit Application for Upper Llagas Creek Flood Protection Project in Santa Clara County, California | |
| 80 FR 58229 - Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground Coal Mines | |
| 80 FR 58299 - Comment Request for Information Collection on the ETA 218, Benefit Rights and Experience Report, Extension With Revisions | |
| 80 FR 58300 - Comment Request for Information Collection on the ETA 9048, Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Activity, and the ETA 9049, Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Outcomes, Extension Without Revisions | |
| 80 FR 58298 - Comment Request for Information Collection on Administrative Procedures Including Form MA 8-7, Extension Without Revisions | |
| 80 FR 58293 - Notice of Public Meetings for the John Day-Snake and Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Councils | |
| 80 FR 58327 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California | |
| 80 FR 58229 - Qualifying Income From Activities of Publicly Traded Partnerships With Respect to Minerals or Natural Resources; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 58295 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review; Renewal of a Currently Approved Collection (OMB Control Number 1006-0003) | |
| 80 FR 58231 - Notice of New Fee Site and Change in Fee Program Structure; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) | |
| 80 FR 58258 - Emergency Funding for New York City Legionella Outbreak | |
| 80 FR 58328 - 30-Day Notice of Application for New Information Collection Request OMB No. 2105-XXXX: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel | |
| 80 FR 58253 - Information Collection; Notice of Radioactive Materials | |
| 80 FR 58257 - Submission for OMB Review; Integrity of Unit Prices | |
| 80 FR 58255 - Submission for OMB Review; Corporate Aircraft Costs | |
| 80 FR 58256 - Submission for OMB Review; Professional Employee Compensation Plan | |
| 80 FR 58254 - Information Collection; North Carolina Sales Tax Certification | |
| 80 FR 58255 - Submission for OMB Review; Authorized Negotiators | |
| 80 FR 58232 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58248 - Enhancements to Federal Reserve Bank Same-Day ACH Service | |
| 80 FR 58294 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Revisions to a Currently Approved Information Collection (OMB Control Number 1006-0015) | |
| 80 FR 58271 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 58264 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58268 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Collection of Customer Services, Demographic, and Smoking/Tobacco Use Information From the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (CIS) Clients (NCI) | |
| 80 FR 58295 - Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Scheduling of a Full Five-Year Review | |
| 80 FR 58220 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 80 FR 58261 - Joint Meeting of the Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee and the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58243 - Empire State Hydro 305, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 80 FR 58245 - New England Hydropower Company, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing With the Commission, Intent To Waive Scoping, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions, and Recommendations, and Establishing an Expedited Schedule for Processing | |
| 80 FR 58241 - VC Porterdale Hydroelectric, LLC: Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 80 FR 58242 - Portland General Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 80 FR 58242 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 80 FR 58240 - Land of the Sky MT, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 58243 - Electric Quarterly Reports; M&R Energy Resources Corp.; Reliable Power, LLC; Susterra Energy, LLC; Notice of Revocation of Market-Based Rate Tariff | |
| 80 FR 58239 - Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 58244 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 80 FR 58246 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 58243 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 58297 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993- National Armaments Consortium | |
| 80 FR 58298 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-OpenDaylight Project, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 58297 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-DVD Copy Control Association | |
| 80 FR 58231 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 58297 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Node.js Foundation | |
| 80 FR 58259 - Biosimilar User Fee Act; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58317 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 80 FR 58316 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 80 FR 58269 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 58272 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 58292 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Naturalization, Form N-400; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 80 FR 58318 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Supplementary Material .20 to Rule 103 To Permit Member Organizations That Operate as Designated Market Maker Units on the Exchange and Also Operate DMM Units on the NYSE MKT LLC To Make an Adjustment to Excess Net Capital | |
| 80 FR 58323 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 503 | |
| 80 FR 58321 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees | |
| 80 FR 58322 - Investor Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58326 - Actions Taken at September 10, 2015, Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58318 - Submission for OMB Review; comments request | |
| 80 FR 58235 - Applications for New Awards; Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Education Interventions and Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Special Education Interventions | |
| 80 FR 58261 - M7(R1) Addendum to ICH M7; International Conference on Harmonisation; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 80 FR 58258 - Labeling Lower-Dose Estrogen-Alone Products for Symptoms of Vulvar and Vaginal Atrophy | |
| 80 FR 58262 - Fee for Using a Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2016 | |
| 80 FR 58201 - Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings | |
| 80 FR 58326 - Notice of Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
| 80 FR 58247 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Radionuclides (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 58315 - National Council on the Arts 186th Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58272 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 58273 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 58334 - Proposed Collection of Information: Report/Application for Relief on Account of Loss, Theft, or Destruction of U.S. Bearer Securities (Organizations) | |
| 80 FR 58330 - Proposed Collection of Information: Report/Application for Relief on Account of Loss, Theft, or Destruction of U.S. Bearer Securities (Individuals) | |
| 80 FR 58329 - Proposed Collection of Information: Certificate of Identity | |
| 80 FR 58331 - Proposed Collection of Information: Pools and Associations-Annual Letter | |
| 80 FR 58307 - Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016 | |
| 80 FR 58270 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 58272 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 58266 - National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 58265 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 58266 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58271 - Center for Scientific Review; Cancellation of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58267 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 58265 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58268 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 58267 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58269 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 58314 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection, Credit Union Service Organizations; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 58222 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International, HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 0, Revision 1 | |
| 80 FR 58207 - Air Plan Approval; CO; Revised Format for Material Incorporated by Reference | |
| 80 FR 58199 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Portland, OR | |
| 80 FR 58224 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 58226 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 58216 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Update to the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards | |
| 80 FR 58292 - Technical Resource for Incident Prevention (TRIPwire) User Registration; Correction |
Forest Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Copyright Royalty Board
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Fiscal Service
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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International (Holtec), HI-STORM (Holtec International Storage Module) Flood/Wind (FW) Multipurpose Canister Storage (MPC) System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032. This revision corrects the CoC's expiration date (editorial change), clarifies heat load limits for helium backfill ranges, clarifies the wording for the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) on vent blockage, and revises the vacuum drying system heat load.
The direct final rule is effective April 25, 2016, unless significant adverse comments are received by October 28, 2015. If the direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3781;
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0134 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0134 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly
This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1032 and does not include other aspects of the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System. The NRC is using the “direct final rule” procedure to issue this revision because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The revision to the rule will become effective on April 25, 2016. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by April 25, 2016, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action, and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis; The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(b) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or Technical Specifications (TSs).
For detailed instructions on submitting comments, please see the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.” To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of Title 10 of the
By letter dated September 16, 2014, and as supplemented on March 12, 2015, Holtec submitted a request to the NRC to revise the initial certificate issued as CoC No. 1032. Because this is a request to revise the initial certificate, the revision is being referred to as “Amendment No. 0, Revision 1.” Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, will supersede the initial version of the CoC and TSs that were effective on June 13, 2011, in their entirety. The HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System is a spent nuclear fuel storage system designed to be in full compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 72. Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, makes the following changes:
• Corrects the expiration date to June 12, 2031.
• Modifies Appendix A, Table 3-2, to show that the narrower helium backfill range can be used for all canisters instead of only those above a certain limit. Additionally, the footnotes on this table are revised.
• Revises the note in Appendix A, LCO 3.1.2, to clarify that each of the inlet and outlet vents should be 50 percent unblocked.
• Revises Appendix A, Table 3-1, to limit the MPC heat load limit for using the vacuum drying system to a lower value, and revises the table notes accordingly.
• Revises Appendix B, Tables 2.3-3 and 2.3-4, to indicate that the per cell heat load limits correspond to the lower MPC heat load limit.
As documented in the safety evaluation report (SER), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC revision request. Correcting the CoC expiration date to reflect a 20-year versus a 40-year certification is an editorial change that is consistent with the original HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System application and SER. The NRC staff also finds that CoC No. 1032, as revised, identifies the necessary TSs to satisfy 10 CFR part 72 and that the applicable criteria of 10 CFR 72.236 have been satisfied. The NRC staff concludes that the proposed TS changes provide reasonable assurance that the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System will allow safe storage of spent nuclear fuel.
This direct final rule revises the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1032. The revision consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the SER.
The revised Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. The NRC staff further determined that the issuance of the revision will not be inimical to the common defense and security. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System that meets the criteria of Amendment No. 0, Revision
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System design listing in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).
The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1032. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.
This direct final rule revises the CoC for the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, corrects the CoC expiration date, clarifies heat load limits for helium backfill ranges, clarifies the wording for the LCO on vent blockage, and revises the vacuum drying system heat load.
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage Systems are designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.
Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the storage system would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would not be significant. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC revision. In addition, because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC revision will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that differ significantly from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The NRC staff documented its safety findings in the SER for this amendment.
The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, and end the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage Systems in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the alternative to the action would be the same or more than the impacts of the action.
Approval of Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1032 would result in no irreversible commitments of resources.
No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.
The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based
This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214.
On September 16, 2014, and as supplemented on March 12, 2015, Holtec submitted an application to revise the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, CoC No. 1032, as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document. The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System under the changes described in Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.
Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER and the environmental assessment, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises CoC No. 1032 for the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, corrects the CoC expiration date, clarifies heat load limits for helium backfill ranges, clarifies the wording for the LCO on vent blockage, and revises the vacuum drying system heat loads.
Although Holtec has manufactured some casks under the existing CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 0, that is being revised by this direct final rule, Holtec, as the vendor, is not subject to backfitting protection under 10 CFR 72.62. Moreover, Holtec requested the change and has requested to apply it to the existing casks manufactured under Amendment No. 0. Therefore, even if the vendor were deemed to be an entity protected from backfitting, this request represents a voluntary change and is not backfitting for Holtec.
Under 10 CFR 72.62, general licensees are entities that are protected from backfitting, and in this instance, Holtec, has provided systems under CoC No.1032, Amendment No. 0, to a general licensee. General licensees are required, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.212, to ensure that each cask conforms to the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC, and that each cask can be safely used at the specific site in question. Because the casks delivered under CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 0, now must be evaluated under 10 CFR 72.212 consistent with the revisions in CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, this change in the evaluation method and criteria constitutes a change in a procedure required to operate an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) and, therefore, would constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62(a)(2). However, in this instance, the general licensee voluntarily indicated their willingness to comply with the revised CoC, as long as the general licensee is provided adequate time to implement the revised CoC (ADAMS Accession No. ML15222A173). This direct final rule accommodates that request by providing an effective date for the final rule to April 25, 2016. Therefore, although the general licensee is an entity protected from backfitting, this request represents a voluntary change and is not backfitting for the general licensee.
In addition, the changes in CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, do not apply to casks which were manufactured to other amendments of CoC No. 1032, and therefore, have no effect on current ISFSI licensees using casks which were manufactured to other amendments of CoC No. 1032. For these reasons, approval of CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, does not constitute backfitting for users of the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System which were manufactured to other amendments of CoC No. 1032, under 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52.
Accordingly, no backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 has been prepared by the NRC staff.
This action is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Certificate Number: 1032.
Initial Certificate Effective Date: June 13, 2011, superseded by Amendment Number 0, Revision 1, on April 25, 2016.
Amendment Number 0, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2016.
Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: December 17, 2014, superseded by Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, on June 2, 2015.
Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, Effective Date: June 2, 2015.
SAR Submitted by: Holtec International, Inc.
SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System.
Docket Number: 72-1032.
Certificate Expiration Date: June 12, 2031.
Model Number: HI-STORM FW MPC-37, MPC-89.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E surface area airspace designated as an extension to Class C airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Portland International Airport, Portland, OR. After reviewing the airspace, the FAA found the Portland VHF omnidirectional radio range/distance measuring equipment (VOR/DME) and Laker non-directional beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned, thereby necessitating airspace redesign for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also corrects the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Z, 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 amends controlled airspace at Portland International Airport, Portland, OR.
On July 20, 2015, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6003 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 E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends 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
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class C airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Portland International Airport, Portland, OR. A review of the airspace revealed modification necessary due to the decommissioned Portland VOR/DME and Laker NDB navigation aids. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are amended to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class C airspace is modified to an area 4.7 miles west and 4 miles east of the 044° bearing from Portland International Airport extending to 18 miles northeast of the airport. The lateral boundary for Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is defined utilizing latitudinal and longitudinal reference points instead of navigation aids. This does not change the lateral boundaries or operating requirements of the airspace.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 45°40′12″ N., long. 122°37′24″ W.; to lat. 45°41′14″ N., long. 122°37′21″ W.; to lat. 45°51′45″ N., long. 122°22′16″ W.; to lat. 45°45′40″ N., long. 122°13′32″ W.; to lat. 45°35′13″ N., long. 122°28′42″ W.; thence counter-clockwise along the 5-mile radius of Portland International Airport to the point of beginning.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 45°59′59″ N., long. 123°30′04″ W.; to lat. 46°00′00″ N., long. 122°13′00″ W.; thence via an 8.5-mile radius centered at lat. 45°55′07″ N., long. 122°03′02″ W. clockwise to lat. 45°46′39″ N., long. 122°04′00″ W.; thence via a line south to lat. 45°09′59″ N., long. 122°04′00″ W.; thence to lat. 45°09′59″ N., long. 123°02′34″ W.; to lat. 45°09′59″ N., long. 123°30′04″ W.; thence to the point of beginning; and within a 4.3-mile radius of McMinnville Municipal Airport; and within 2 miles each side of the 215° bearing from McMinnville Municipal Airport to 8.1 miles south of the airport; and that
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges publish final regulations that set the rates and terms for the digital performances of sound recordings by certain noncommercial educational webcasters and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary to facilitate those transmissions for the period commencing January 1, 2016, and ending on December 31, 2020.
LaKeshia Keys, Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658, or at
The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) received a joint motion from SoundExchange, Inc. (SoundExchange), and College Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI) in which they announced a partial settlement of the above proceeding for certain internet transmissions by college radio stations and other noncommercial webcasters.
The proposed SoundExchange/CBI settlement (Settlement) generally continues in effect, with certain adjustments, the extant rates for eligible NEWs that were codified in 37 CFR part 380 Subpart C. The Judges adopted those rates and terms pursuant to Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Act as part of the prior webcasting determination.
Under the proposed Settlement, an eligible NEW would pay a $500 annual fee for each of the individual channels, side channels, or stations through which it makes Eligible Transmissions. Proposed Rule 37 CFR 380.22(a). The $500 fee would also serve as the minimum fee for eligible NEWs. All other NEWs would pay the royalties established under Part 380 Subpart A applicable to noncommercial webcasters. Proposed Rule 37 CFR 380.22(c).
To qualify for the rates under the Settlement, a NEW's total monthly per channel or per station transmissions must remain below 159,140 aggregate tuning hours (ATH). If a NEW's transmissions exceed that threshold, the NEW must pay royalties for the relevant month, and for the remainder of the relevant year, in accordance with the otherwise applicable noncommercial rates to be determined in this proceeding. In subsequent years, a NEW that wishes to pay the rates under the Settlement must take affirmative steps not to exceed the 159,140 ATH threshold. Proposed Rule 37 CFR 380.22(b).
Commercial webcasters are required to make detailed, census reports of all sound recordings they transmit. NEWs with limited listenership may pay the Collective a proxy fee to avoid the burden of census reporting. The Settlement increases the listenership cap (from 55,000 ATH to 80,000 ATH) for services electing the proxy fee
The Judges received nearly 60 comments—some supporting and some opposing adoption of the Settlement—in response to their request for comments published in the
In its comment supporting adoption of the joint proposal, CBI noted that the Settlement contains
CBI further noted that
[T]he current Settlement continues essentially the same recordkeeping terms that have been integral for NEWs to be able to comply with the statutory license. In particular, these recordkeeping terms include an optional proxy fee, which allows NEWs to pay an additional $100 in lieu of complying with ordinarily-applicable recordkeeping rules, which are frequently impossible for NEWs to comply with due to their more limited budgets, older broadcasting technology, and other operational limitations. [T]he new Settlement makes this extremely necessary reporting option available for more stations than the previous one did. It also continues to provide recordkeeping relief for those stations whose audience size makes them ineligible for this
WSOU Seton Hall University—not a participant in the proceeding—stated:
Since the current agreement has been in place for several years and has worked to the satisfaction of a large number of college stations, it is prudent to extend that fair and successful arrangement into the future. The proposed settlement is affordable for our station, easily implementable, and relieves WSOU from burdensome reporting requirements while allowing royalties to be paid to the rightful recipients.
Wayne State College—also a nonparticipant—stated:
The proposed agreement . . . serves our station well. In the past, when reporting requirements were more demanding, it threatened our ability to continue streaming commercially recorded music [because] the station is operated by students, with faculty oversight, and thus has no actual paid employees. The opportunity to make an additional payment in lieu of reporting makes an overwhelming difference for us.
Those opposing adoption of the Settlement argue, among other things, that doing so before issuing a final determination in the proceeding would be premature. This position is discussed illustratively in a comment from the Dayton Public School District in Dayton, Ohio (“Dayton”)—not a participant to the proceeding—which contends that “[n]o other commercial or noncommercial agreements have been reached [and] 99.5% of the [SoundExchange] royalty revenue is commercial, 0.5% noncommercial. CBI [represents] only a small fraction of the 0.5% noncommercial. Other rates should be determined before such an insignificant agreement should be considered.” Dayton Public School District Comment (Nov. 26, 2014).
Dayton also claims that the proposed rates in the Settlement are higher than those paid by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting-qualified webcasters and those paid by Live365 in 2009 and 2010. Accordingly, according to Dayton, the CRB “needs to determine all noncommercial `willing buyer-willing sellers' before approving the rate in the CBI/SoundExchange Settlement.”
Dayton further contends that the payment of a proxy fee in lieu of reporting requirements precludes accurate allocation of royalties to the artists that earned them.
Lastly, Dayton argues that “[m]any, if not most, of the web streams covered under the CBI agreement would be from public [entities] like public schools, community colleges, and State colleges/universities.” According to Dayton, “[m]ost State statutes forbid payments from State entities to lobbying organizations. SoundExchange is a lobbying organization . . . The CRB should de conflict [sic] State and Federal law, perhaps through an aggregator payment like is done through CPB, Live365 and is proposed for IBS Members.”
IBS—a participant in the proceeding—“takes no position on whether the [CRB] should approve the rates [set forth in the settlement] for signatories” but, IBS contends, the proposed rates are not reasonable for the majority of educationally based broadcasters and webcasters that do not have paid staffs. According to IBS, CBI's membership is not representative of a majority of educationally-based broadcasters and webcasters, implying, without offering supporting evidence, that CBI member stations have paid staffs. IBS Comments on SX-CBI's Joint Rate Proposal at 5 (Nov. 27, 2014). IBS implies, again without offering supporting evidence, that the majority of noncommercial webcasters do not have paid staff, and, therefore, presumably would be less able to pay the rates set forth in the Settlement.
WHRB—a participant in the proceeding—highlights certain “inadvertent drafting anomalies” in the proposal, which, if uncorrected, “might render the proposed rates inapplicable to WHRB's simulcast stream.” WHRB's Comments on SX-CBI Rate Proposal at 1 (Nov. 27, 2014) (WHRB Comment). In particular, WHRB notes that the proposed provision addressing the certification requirement would eliminate the word “officer” and substitute “representative of the applicable educational institution.”
The NRBNMLC—a participant in the proceeding—believes that a $500 flat fee and a complete reporting exemption constitute “workable rates and terms for NEWs.” NRBNMLC Comment at 2 (Nov. 26, 2014). At the same time, however, the NRBNMLC raised certain issues with the proposal. For example, the NRBNMLC noted that the ATH definition
does not unambiguously exclude . . . programming that does not include sound recordings at all, such as news, talk and sports programming. NEWs receive no benefit under the Statutory Licenses from transmitting such programming, so their transmission of that programming should not adversely affect their fee liability under the Statutory Licenses in any way. Where ATH thresholds are used to affect the fees that NEWs must pay and the reporting requirements that they must follow, discrete programming blocks that do not include sound recordings subject to the Statutory Licenses should not count toward meeting these thresholds.
NRBNMLC also notes that not a single NEW paid more than the minimum fee over the past three years, which means that all NEWs streamed at levels below the ATH threshold of 159,140—the threshold for determining whether a station owed fees in excess of the minimum fee for those years.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) noted in its comment on behalf of National Public Radio, Inc. (NPR) —a participant in the proceeding—(among others) that: “NPR and Public Radio do not object to the proposed Settlement with the understanding that it does not apply to NPR/Public Radio.” Comments Concerning Proposed Settlement of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at 1 (Nov. 26, 2014). CPB noted further that NPR/Public Radio “has proposed terms and conditions for SoundExchange's licensing of NPR/Public Radio that are reasonable and appropriate for NPR/Public Radio; and the proposed Settlement does not and should not have application to same.”
The Judges' authority to adopt proposed settlements as statutory rates and terms is codified in Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act. That provision of the Act authorizes the Judges to adopt as a basis for statutory terms and rates an agreement concerning such matters reached among “some or all of the participants” in a proceeding “at any time during the proceeding” except that the Judges must provide an opportunity to comment on the agreement to those that would be bound by the agreement. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(i).
The Act authorizes the Judges to decline to adopt the agreement for participants that are not parties to the agreement if a participant to the proceeding objects to the agreement and the Judges conclude, based on the record before them if one exists, that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms and rates. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii). Section 801(b)(7)(A) limits the circumstances under which the Judges are able to decline to adopt aspects of an agreement, but it does not foreclose the Judges from ascertaining whether specific provisions are contrary to law.
In the context of the statutory requirements regarding adoption of settlements, the Judges find that—notwithstanding the objections of some of the commenters—this partial Settlement provides a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms and rates and therefore the Judges adopt the partial Settlement, with one exception discussed below.
Objections to the proposal can be summarized as follows: (1) Adopting the Settlement before conclusion of the proceeding would be premature; (2) rates paid by certain other parties in previous agreements are lower than those in the proposed Settlement; (3) payment of a proxy fee
The Judges address these concerns in turn.
Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Act is clear that the Judges have the authority to adopt settlements between some or all of the participants to a proceeding
Some commenters claim that certain rates agreed to by certain participants in other contexts are lower than those agreed to in the Settlement. Even if true, such a fact would be irrelevant to determining whether the current proposal forms a reasonable basis for rates and terms with respect to the entities to which it applies in the current proceeding. Indeed, in most material respects, the rates and terms of the Settlement merely extend current rates and terms for another five years. The Judges have been presented with no evidence to suggest that the current rates and terms, which the Settlement would extend, have been disruptive or overly burdensome for the entities to which they apply, notwithstanding that some entities during some previous years may have paid lower rates.
The Judges are also unconvinced that the provision regarding proxy fee payment
Although the threshold to qualify for proxy fee payment in lieu of reporting would rise from 55,000 ATH to 80,000 ATH, such an increase would affect few if any qualifying NEWs.
SoundExchange confirms that “the proxy reporting provisions in Section 380.23(g)(1) have proven to be a reasonable solution to the problem of distributing on a fair and cost-effective basis the relatively small pool of royalties paid by NEWs.” SoundExchange Comment at 6. The Judges see no reason to disrupt a reporting method that appears to be operating fairly and efficiently.
Concerns about state laws as they relate to royalty deposits with SoundExchange as the Collective
That being said, the Judges decline to adopt at this point the proposed definition of “Collective” in the settlement that expressly designates SoundExchange. Designation of the Collective is an issue that the Judges will decide in the final determination.
The Judges find no persuasive evidence in the record before them to support the argument that CBI members are not representative of NEWs generally. Even if the Judges were presented with such evidence, that fact alone would not convince the Judges that the current Settlement is not a reasonable basis for setting rates and terms for those entities that wish to avail themselves of the Settlement. The underlying argument appears to be that NEWs that do not have the resources to pay a staff should be entitled to more favorable terms and rates than those available under the Settlement. Even if that were true—a contention upon which the Judges need not opine at this time—that fact would not suggest that the Settlement as proposed does not form a reasonable basis for rates and terms. Proposed settlements need not be the best possible outcome for all concerned; they need only form a reasonable basis for rates and terms, and the Judges find that the current proposal meets that standard.
NRBNMLC notes that the definition of ATH in § 380.21, which would carry over under the Settlement, “does not unambiguously exclude . . . programming that does not include sound recordings at all, such as news, talk and sports programming.” NRBNMLC Comment at 2. Although NRBNMLC does not object to the ATH definition, it believes this aspect of the definition is a “flaw,” albeit not one that would adversely affect NEWs since, according to NRBNMLC, NEWs stream at levels well below the 159,140 ATH level.
WHRB also expresses nebulous concern over the ATH definition, noting that it potentially overstates ATH and would have “the attendant consequences.” WHRB Comment at 4. Neither commenter's concerns about the perceived scope of the ATH definition are of the magnitude that would suggest that the Settlement does not form a reasonable basis for setting rates and terms. Indeed, the Settlement merely carries forward the current ATH definition, which has applied without incident over the current rate period. Therefore, the Judges adopt without change the proposed ATH definition.
NRBNMLC notes that during the current license period all NEWs streamed at a level below the 159,140 ATH threshold, and therefore they have no incentive to negotiate a higher threshold for the upcoming license term. The Judges view this statement as an affirmation that the proposed Settlement, which carries forward the current ATH threshold, is a reasonable basis for rates and terms applicable to NEWs. In reaching that conclusion, however, the Judges do not mean to imply that in other contexts, with respect to entities that stream at levels beyond those that are typical for NEWs, a different streaming threshold might not also be reasonable.
WHRB takes exception to a provision in the Settlement dealing with the category of persons authorized to certify a NEW's status in statements of account. Currently, the certifying person must be an “officer or other duly authorized faculty member or administrator of the applicable educational institution.” 37 CFR 380.23(f)(9). Under the proposal, the certifying person could be any “duly authorized representative” of the applicable educational institution.
The Judges find that the proposed change to § 380.23(f)(9), viewed in the context of the proposed Settlement as a whole, is a reasonable means of ensuring that the statement of account is certified by a person who is duly authorized to represent the applicable educational institution for this limited purpose. Nothing in the provision expressly precludes that duly authorized person from being a student, independent auditor, counsel, or other person, so long as the applicable educational institution “duly authorizes” that person to perform the required task as the institution's representative. To be sure, the by-laws of a particular institution may dictate who may or may not serve as a duly authorized representative of a particular educational institution. Nevertheless, the Judges find the proposed amendment to § 380.23(f)(9) to be reasonable in the context of the
On May 2, 2014, the CRB published in the
In response, the CRB received a number of comments from NEWs requesting that the reporting waiver in 37 CFR 380.23(g)(1) (
Many if not most of the comments responsive to the proposed recordkeeping provisions were filed by NEWs that apparently would qualify under the proposed Settlement to pay the proxy fee
For the reasons discussed above, the Judges find that the agreement reached voluntarily between SoundExchange and CBI establishes a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms and rates for noncommercial educational webcasters for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020. The Judges adopt the proposed regulations that codify the partial Settlement with the one exception discussed above,
Copyright, Digital audio transmissions, Performance right, Sound recordings.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges amend 37 CFR part 380 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114(f), 804(b)(3).
(a)
(1) Has obtained a compulsory license under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114 and the implementing regulations therefor to make Eligible Transmissions and related ephemeral recordings;
(2) Complies with all applicable provisions of Sections 112(e) and 114 and applicable regulations;
(3) Is directly operated by, or is affiliated with and officially sanctioned by, and the digital audio transmission operations of which are staffed substantially by students enrolled at, a domestically accredited primary or secondary school, college, university or other post-secondary degree-granting educational institution;
(4) Is not a “public broadcasting entity” (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 118(f)) qualified to receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting pursuant to the criteria set forth in 47 U.S.C. 396; and
(5) Takes affirmative steps not to make total transmissions in excess of 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours on any individual channel or station in any month, if in any previous calendar year it has made total transmissions in excess of 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours on any individual channel or station in any month.
(a)
(b)
(1) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster shall, for such month and the remainder of the calendar year in which such month occurs, pay royalties in accordance, and otherwise comply, with the provisions of Part 380 Subpart A applicable to noncommercial webcasters;
(2) The Minimum Fee paid by the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster for such calendar year will be credited to the amounts payable under the provisions of Part 380 Subpart A applicable to noncommercial webcasters; and
(3) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster shall, within 45 days after the end of such month, notify the Collective that it has made total transmissions in excess of 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours on a channel or station in a month; pay the Collective any amounts for such month due under the provisions of Part 380 Subpart A applicable to noncommercial webcasters; and provide the Collective a statement of account pursuant to Part 380 Subpart A.
(c)
(d)
(e)
The revisions read as follows:
(c)
(f)
(4) The signature of a duly authorized representative of the applicable educational institution;
(9) A statement to the following effect:
I, the undersigned duly authorized representative of the applicable educational institution, have examined this statement of account; hereby state that it is true, accurate, and complete to my knowledge after reasonable due diligence; and further certify that the licensee entity named herein qualifies as a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster for the relevant year, and did not exceed 159,140 total ATH in any month of the prior year for which the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster did not submit a statement of account and pay any required additional royalties.
(g) * * *
(1)
(3)
(i) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster exceeded 159,140 total ATH for any individual channel or station for more than one calendar month in the immediately preceding calendar year;
(ii) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster expects to exceed 159,140 total ATH for any individual channel or station for any calendar month in the applicable calendar year; or
(iii) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster otherwise does not elect to be subject to paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section.
A Noncommercial Educational Webcaster required to report pursuant to paragraph (g)(3) of this section shall provide reports of use to the Collective quarterly on a census reporting basis in accordance with § 370.4 of this chapter, except that, notwithstanding § 370.4(d)(2), such a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster shall not be required to include ATH or actual total performances, and may in lieu thereof provide channel or station name and play frequency, during the first calendar year it reports in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of this section. For the avoidance of doubt, after a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster has been required to report in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of this section for a full calendar year, it must thereafter include ATH or actual total performances in its reports of use. All reports of use under paragraph (g)(3) of this section shall be submitted to the Collective no later than the 45th day after the end of each calendar quarter.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the format of materials submitted by the state of Colorado that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this format change have all been previously submitted by Colorado and approved by the EPA.
This action is effective September 28, 2015.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0149. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6142,
This format revision will affect the “Identification of plan” section of 40 CFR part 52, as well as the format of the SIP materials that will be available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center located at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the EPA Region 8 Office.
Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and achieve certain other Clean Air Act (Act) requirements (
Each SIP revision submitted by Colorado must be adopted at the state level after undergoing reasonable notice and public hearing. SIPs submitted to EPA to attain or maintain the NAAQS must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, schedules and timetables for compliance.
EPA evaluates submitted SIPs to determine if they meet the Act's requirements. If a SIP meets the Act's requirements, EPA will approve the SIP. EPA's notice of approval is published in the
We do not reproduce in 40 CFR part 52 the full text of the Colorado regulations that we have approved. Instead, we incorporate them by reference or IBR. We approve a given state regulation with a specific effective date and then refer the public to the location(s) of the full text version of the state regulation(s) should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP (see I.F.,
The SIP is a dynamic document which the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations.
On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA announced revised procedures for IBR of federally approved SIPs. The procedures announced included: (1) A new process for IBR of material submitted by states into compilations and a process for updating those compilations on roughly an annual basis; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the compilations and the CFR; and, (3) a revised format for the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures.
We have organized into a compilation the federally-approved regulations, source-specific requirements and nonregulatory provisions we have approved into the SIP. These compilations may be found at
Each compilation contains three parts. Part one contains the state regulations that have been approved, part two contains the source-specific requirements that have been approved as part of the SIP (if any), and part three contains non-regulatory provisions that have been approved. Each compilation contains a table of identifying information for each regulation, each source-specific requirement, and each nonregulatory provision. The state effective dates in the tables indicate the date of the most recent revision to a particular approved regulation. The table of identifying information in the compilation corresponds to the table of contents published in 40 CFR part 52 for the state. The EPA Regional Offices have the primary responsibility for ensuring accuracy and updating the compilations.
EPA Region 8 developed and will maintain the compilation for Colorado. An electronic copy of the compilation is contained at
In order to better serve the public, EPA has revised the organization of the “Identification of plan” section in 40 CFR part 52 and included additional information to clarify the elements of the SIP.
The revised Identification of plan section for Colorado contains five subsections:
1. Purpose and scope (see 40 CFR 52.320(a));
2. Incorporation by reference (see 40 CFR 52.320(b));
3. EPA-approved regulations (see 40 CFR 52.320(c));
4. EPA-approved source-specific requirements (see 40 CFR 52.320(d)); and,
5. EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions such as transportation control measures, statutory provisions, control strategies, monitoring networks, etc. (see 40 CFR 52.320(e)).
All revisions to the applicable SIP are federally enforceable as of the effective date of EPA's approval of the respective revision. In general, SIP revisions become effective 30 to 60 days after publication of EPA's SIP approval action in the
To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and to provide a smooth transition to the new SIP processing system, we are retaining the original Identification of plan section (40 CFR 52.354). This section previously appeared at 40 CFR 52.320. After an initial two-year period, we will review our experience with the new table format and will decide whether to retain the original identification of plan section (40 CFR 52.354) for some further period.
This action constitutes a “housekeeping” exercise to reformat the codification of the EPA-approved Colorado SIP.
EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon a finding of “good cause” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This action simply reformats the codification of provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law.
Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Likewise, there is no purpose served by delaying the effective date of this action.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Colorado regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the
The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Colorado SIP compilation had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” reorganization action for Colorado.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) This section identifies the original “Air Implementation Plan for the State of Colorado” and all revisions submitted by Colorado that were federally approved prior to June 1, 2015.
(a)
(b)
(2) EPA Region 8 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the State Implementation Plan as of June 1, 2015.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Environmental
(c)
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) on July 10, 2015. The SIP submission contains revisions to the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) solid fuel burning device regulations to control particulate matter from residential wood combustion. The updated regulations reflect the State of Washington's statutory changes setting fine particulate matter trigger levels for impaired air quality burn bans. The submission also contains updates to the regulations to improve the clarity of the language. We are approving these changes because they meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and strengthen the Washington SIP.
This final rule is effective October 28, 2015.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0483. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For information please contact Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256,
On August 10, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve revisions to the SRCAA solid fuel burning device regulations (80 FR 47880). An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on September 9, 2015. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.
The EPA is approving Washington's SIP revision submitted on July 10, 2015. Specifically, the EPA is approving and incorporating by reference into the SIP the SRCAA regulations shown in Table 1. We note that Ecology and SRCAA submitted Regulation I, Section 8.11,
In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are revising our incorporation by reference in 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 9 “Additional Regulations Approved for the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) Jurisdiction” to reflect the regulations shown in Table 1. Also, for the reasons stated above, the EPA is approving but not incorporating by reference SRCAA Regulation I, Section 8.11,
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. This SIP revision is not approved to apply in Indian reservations in the State or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 27, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c)
(e) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
NMFS corrects the final rule that implemented management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), which published in the
This correction is effective September 28, 2015.
Cynthia Meyer, telephone 727-824-5305; email:
The final rule for Amendment 40 to the FMP published on April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22422), and established two components within the recreational sector for Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) red snapper (a Federal charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) component and a private angling component), allocated the red snapper recreational quota between the components, established recreational component ACTs, established separate seasonal closures for the two components, and established component specific overage adjustments the year following an overage of the total recreational annual catch limit (ACL).
The final rule for the framework amendment published on May 1, 2015, and increased the commercial and recreational quotas for red snapper in the Gulf reef fish fishery for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years, and subsequent fishing years (80 FR 24832). This rule did not change the structure of the separate components quotas and ACTs that were implemented in the Amendment 40 final rule.
The regulatory text in the Amendment 40 final rule in § 622.41(q)(2)(i) and (ii), that expressly referred to component specific seasons and overage adjustments the year following an overage of the total recreational ACL, was not carried over into the final rule for the framework amendment. This notification corrects § 622.41(q)(2)(i) and (ii) by adding the necessary language from the Amendment 40 final rule back into the regulations.
As published, the final rule for the framework amendment, published May 1, 2015 (80 FR 24832), did not reflect the regulatory text implemented by the final rule for Amendment 40, published April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22422). Language is added to § 622.41(q)(2)(i) and (ii) to correct that omission.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this correcting amendment is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf red snapper and is consistent with Amendment 40, the framework amendment, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for additional public comment for this action because it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Providing prior notice and the opportunity for public comment is unnecessary because the public received notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules for the framework amendment and Amendment 40 and the final rule for Amendment 40 included this regulatory text. This correcting amendment reinstates the regulatory text that was inadvertently omitted from the final rule for the framework action that published on May 1, 2015 (80 FR 24832). If the rule was delayed to allow for prior notice and opportunity for public comment, it would cause confusion because the public believes that the omitted text is already included in the regulations.
For the same reasons, the Assistant Administrator also finds good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), to waive the 30-day delay in effective date for this correcting amendment. If the rule was delayed to allow for the 30-day delay in effectiveness, it would continue to cause confusion because the public believes that the omitted text is already included in the regulations.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of Mexico, Quotas, Recreational, Red snapper.
Accordingly, 50 CFR part 622 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(q) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The AA will determine the length of the red snapper recreational fishing season, or recreational fishing seasons for the Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling components, based on when recreational landings are projected to reach the recreational ACT, or respective recreational component ACT specified in paragraph (q)(2)(iii) of this section, and announce the closure date(s) in the
(ii) In addition to the measures specified in paragraph (q)(2)(i) of this section, if red snapper recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the total recreational quota specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i)(A), and red snapper are overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the total recreational quota by the amount of the quota overage in the prior fishing year, and reduce the applicable recreational component quota(s) specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i)(B) and (C) and the applicable recreational component ACT(s) specified in paragraph (q)(2)(iii) of this section (based on the buffer between the total recreational ACT and the total recreational quota specified in the FMP), unless NMFS determines based upon the best scientific information available that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is exchanging allocations of Amendment 80 cooperative quota (CQ) for Amendment 80 acceptable biological catch (ABC) reserves. This action is necessary to allow the 2015 total allowable catch of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area to be harvested.
Effective September 28, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2015 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole Amendment 80 allocations of the total allowable catch (TAC) specified in the BSAI are 16,655 metric tons (mt), 53,840 mt, and 111,892 mt as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015). The 2015 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves are 37,399 mt, 100,418 mt, and 89,121 mt as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015).
The Alaska Seafood cooperative has requested that NMFS exchange 5,620 mt of flathead sole and 1,450 mt of rock sole Amendment 80 allocations of the TAC for 7,070 mt of yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves under § 679.91(i). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.91(i), NMFS exchanges 5,620 mt of flathead sole and 1,450 mt of rock sole Amendment 80 allocations of the TAC for 7,070 mt of yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the TACs and Amendment 80 ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts. Tables 11 and 13 of the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015) and as revised (80 FR 55562, September 16, 2015) are further revised as follows:
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the flatfish exchange by the Alaska Seafood cooperative the BSAI. Since these fisheries are currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 17, 2015.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International (Holtec), HI-STORM (Holtec International Storage Module) Flood/Wind (FW) Multipurpose Canister Storage (MPC) System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032. This revision corrects the CoC's expiration date (editorial change), clarifies heat load limits for helium backfill ranges, clarifies the wording for the Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO) on vent blockage, and revises the vacuum drying system heat load.
Submit comments by October 28, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3781; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0134 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0134 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
This proposed rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1032 and does not include other aspects of the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System. Because the NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
The direct final rule will become effective on April 25, 2016. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this proposed rule by October 28, 2015, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments received in response to these proposed revisions in a subsequent final rule. Absent significant modifications to
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or Technical Specifications (TSs). For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of Title 10 of the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act
Certificate Number: 1032.
Initial Certificate Effective Date: June 13, 2011, superseded by Amendment Number 0, Revision 1, on April 25, 2016.
Amendment Number 0, Revision 1, Effective Date April 25, 2016.
Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: December 17, 2014, superseded by Amendment.
Number 1, Revision 1, on June 2, 2015.
Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, Effective Date: June 2, 2015.
SAR Submitted by: Holtec International, Inc.
SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System.
Docket Number: 72-1032.
Certificate Expiration Date: June 12, 2031.
Model Number: HI-STORM FW MPC-37, MPC-89.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracks on the lugs of the inboard and outboard control rod fittings of the right hand (RH) and left hand (LH) side ailerons. This proposed AD would require a one-time non-destructive test (NDT) inspection of the inboard and outboard control rod fittings of the RH and LH side ailerons for cracks and corrosion, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks and corrosion on the lugs of the inboard and outboard control rod fittings of the RH and LH side ailerons, which could lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 12, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact EADS-CASA, Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated Customer Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone: +34 91 585 55 84; fax: +34 91 585 55 05; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; fax: 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0040, dated March 6, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. The MCAI states:
A CN-235 operator recently reported finding, during scheduled maintenance tasks, cracks on the lugs of the control rod fittings (inboard and outboard) of the ailerons [Right Hand (RH) and Left Hand (LH) side] of two aeroplanes. At the time of the finding, the two affected aeroplanes had accumulated between 16,000 and 17,000 flight hours (FH), around 6,000 flight cycles and had been in service for 20 years. Following the investigation results, it was determined that these cracks were due to stress corrosion.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to aileron fittings
To address this unsafe condition and verify the integrity of the fittings, EADS-CASA (Airbus Military) issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) CN235-57-0001 to provide instructions for a one-time Non-Destructive (NDT) inspection of the affected fittings for cracks and corrosion.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time NDT inspection of the affected aileron fittings and, if discrepancies are detected, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [repair of any cracked or corroded parts].
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) has issued Airbus Military Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-57-0001, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a one-time NDT inspection of the inboard and outboard control rod fittings of the RH and LH side ailerons for cracks and corrosion, and repair if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 24 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 30 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $61,200, or $2,550 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 12, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracks on the lugs of the inboard and outboard control rod fittings of the right hand (RH) and left hand (LH) side ailerons. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks and corrosion on the lugs of the inboard and outboard control rod fittings of the RH and LH side ailerons, which could lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD: Do a one-time NDT inspection of the inboard and outboard control rod fittings of the RH and LH side ailerons for cracks, and a one-time general visual inspection for corrosion, in accordance with Airbus Military Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-57-0001, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2014.
(i) Before exceeding 8,000 flight hours or 10 years since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) If any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) for approved repair instructions, and before further flight, accomplish the repair accordingly.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0040, dated March 6, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact EADS-CASA, Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated Customer Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 55 05; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the fuselage skin repairs are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine whether any fuselage external skin (doubler) repairs have been accomplished, an inspection for cracking of certain repaired external fuselage skin areas in the fuselage, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 12, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses. This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0036R1, dated March 31, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During A320 family Extended Service Goal full scale fatigue tests, it was demonstrated that the inspection thresholds defined in the current Structural Repair Manual (SRM) for the A320 family skin repairs are insufficient to detect possible cracks becoming after repairs. The findings are limited to 1.2 [millimeter] (mm) fuselage skin and cover for all cut-out external repairs. The internal repairs are not affected.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the fuselage at the repaired skin area(s).
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53N007-14 to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2015-0036 [
Since that AD was issued, operators have questioned the inspection threshold for A318 aeroplanes (not yet in the Airbus AOT), which is actually identical to that for A319 aeroplanes. In addition, an error has been detected in paragraph (1), since external doublers may have been installed in the affected area by a modification that may not be recorded as repair.
Such doubler installations are also subject to the inspection requirements of this AD, which is therefore revised to provide clarifications, correcting paragraph (1) and introducing a Note.
Required actions include an inspection to determine whether any fuselage external skin (doubler) repairs have been accomplished, an external ultrasonic inspection or an internal low/high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of certain repaired external fuselage skin areas in the fuselage, and repair if necessary. The compliance times vary depending on airplane configuration. The earliest compliance time is within 25,200 flight cycles since last repair, or within 350 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later. The latest compliance time is within 45,000 flight cycles since last repair; within 1,500 flight cycles from the effective date of the AD, without exceeding 49,100 flight cycles since last repair; or within 350 flight cycles since the effective date of the AD; whichever occurs last. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014. The service information describes procedures for an inspection to detect cracking on repaired 1.2 millimeter fuselage skin areas on fuselage sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 at external doubler repairs. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 940 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $159,800, or $170 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 12, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the fuselage skin repairs are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Do an inspection to determine whether any fuselage external skin (doubler) repairs have been accomplished on fuselage sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 with a skin thickness of 1.2 millimeters. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the identification of applicable repairs can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1) For Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes: Except as specified in paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraphs 4.1.1.b., and 4.1.1.c., of “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, or within 350 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For Model A318 series airplanes: Except as specified in paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, at the Model A319 airplane time specified in paragraphs 4.1.1.b., and 4.1.1.c., of “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, or within 350 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(1) Where paragraphs 4.1.1.b., and 4.1.1.c., of “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, specifies “FC”, this AD specifies “flight cycles.”
(2) Where paragraphs 4.1.1.b., and 4.1.1.c., of “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, specifies “from AOT issuance”, this AD specifies “as of the effective date of this AD.”
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, it is determined that any fuselage external skin (doubler) repair has been accomplished on fuselage section 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, or 17: At the applicable time specified paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do an external ultrasonic inspection (US) or an internal low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection for cracking of all of the repaired 1.2 millimeter (mm) fuselage skin areas, in accordance with the instructions specified in paragraph 4.2.2 “Inspection Requirements,” of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD.
As an optional method of compliance to the US or LFEC inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking in the cut-out surrounding the fastener area, at and in front (approximately 10-15 millimeters) of the fastener row, after doubler removal and before any new extended doubler installation, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
In lieu of doing the inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 4.1.1 “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, after accomplishing the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do a detailed inspection or HFEC inspection and repeat the inspection thereafter within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph 4.1.1 “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014. The inspections must be done in accordance with the instructions of paragraph 4.2.2 “Inspection Requirements,” of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014. For Model A318 series airplanes, use the applicable compliance times and instructions specified in Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, that are specified for Model A319 series airplanes.
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (i), (j), or (k) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the cracking, in accordance with the instructions of paragraph 4.2.3 “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, except where Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, specifies to contact Airbus for a repair design approval sheet or for further instructions, this AD requires repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
Concurrently with the accomplishment of any repair required by paragraph (l) of this
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0036R1, dated March 31, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
This document provides notice of public hearing on proposed regulations relates to section 7704(d)(1)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to qualifying income from exploration, development, mining or production, processing, refining, transportation, and marketing of minerals or production, processing, refining, transportation, and marketing of minerals or natural resources.
The public hearing is being held on Tuesday, October 27, 2015, at 10 a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Wednesday, October 7, 2015.
The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-132634-14), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-132634-14), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the regulations, Caroline E. Hay (202) 317-5279; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-132634-14) that was published in the
A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR) (Room 1621) which is located at the 11th and Pennsylvania Avenue, entrance, of 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Proposed rule; scheduling of public hearing.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is announcing the date and location of public hearings on the Agency's proposed rule addressing Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground Coal Mines, published on September 2, 2015.
The public hearing dates and locations are listed in the
Comments, requests to speak, and informational materials for
•
•
•
•
•
Sheila A. McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
The hearings will be held in Denver, CO; Birmingham, AL; Beaver, WV; and Indianapolis, IN. Please see the information contained in the table below for locations, dates, and times.
Each hearing will begin with an opening statement from MSHA, followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral presentations. Each hearing will end after the last speaker has spoken. Persons do not have to make a written request to speak; however, persons and organizations wishing to speak are encouraged to notify MSHA in advance for scheduling purposes. MSHA requests that parties making presentations at the hearings submit them no later than five days prior to the hearing. Presentations and accompanying documentation will be included in the rulemaking record.
The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. Formal rules of evidence or cross examination will not apply. The hearing panel may ask questions of speakers and speakers may ask questions of the hearing panel. Verbatim transcripts of the proceedings will be prepared and made a part of the rulemaking record. Copies of the transcripts will be available to the public. The transcripts may also be viewed at
Coconino National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Arizona.
Notice of new fee sites and change in fee program structure.
The Coconino National Forest is proposing to begin charging a new fee for the following two facilities: Dry Creek Vista Picnic Site and Fay Canyon Vista and Trailhead. These sites are part of a larger Red Rock Pass fee proposal. For more details, go to
Should the fee proposal be approved by the Regional Forester, these new fees will go into effect no sooner than six months after the date of publication in the
Address all comments concerning this notice to Forest Supervisor, Coconino National Forest, 1824 South Thompson Street, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001.
Jennifer Burns, Red Rock District Recreation Staff Officer, Coconino National Forest, 928-203-7529 or via email at
Dry Creek Vista Picnic Site; Fay Canyon Vista Trailhead. These locations are extremely popular with over 500 visitors per day during spring and fall using the sites for recreation. The amenities at these sites are critical both for public services and for resource protection. The general area is rich in archaeological remains and also has sensitive soils. The developed sites have adequate amenities to mitigate resource damage which can accompany such high recreation pressure. The fee revenue will be used to maintain the sites and provide public security: pump the vault toilet, provide janitorial service, remove garbage, provide interpretation, repair signs and parking surfaces and support Forest Service patrols in the area for visitor assistance and security. Dry Creek site: T.17N., R.5E., Sec. 3, NE1/4NW1/4N1/2; Fay Canyon site: T.17N., R.5E., Sec.31, GSRBM. These two new fee proposals are part of a larger fee modification proposal on the Coconino National Forest.
The full fee proposal can be found on the Coconino (or Red Rock) National Forest Web site at:
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).
The purpose of this information collection is to obtain information from individuals in Merizo, Guam. Specifically, NOAA is seeking information on the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of watershed and coral reef conditions, as well as information on knowledge and attitudes related to specific reef protection activities in the Manell-Geus watershed and adjacent waters. In addition, this survey will provide for the ongoing collection of social and economic data related to the communities affected by coral reef conservation programs.
Manell-Geus is one of ten sites in the nation selected as a focus area for NOAA's Habitat Blueprint initiative. Community support and engagement are key elements towards successfully building resilience. We intend to use the information collected through this instrument for research purposes as well as measuring and improving the results of our coral reef protection programs. Because many of our efforts to protect reefs rely on education and changing attitudes toward reef protection, the information collected will allow NOAA staff to ensure programs are designed appropriately at the start, future
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP) will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, October 15, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will held at the Radisson Hotel Providence Airport, 2081 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; telephone: (401) 739-3000.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The NTAP is a joint advisory panel of the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils. It is composed of Council members, fishing industry, academic, and government and non-government fisheries experts who will provide advice and direction on the conduct of trawl research. The NTAP was established to bring commercial fishing, fisheries science, and fishery management professionals in the northeastern US together to identify concerns about regional research survey performance and data, to identify methods to address or mitigate these concerns, and to promote mutual understanding and acceptance of the results of this work among their peers and in the broader community. Topics to be discussed at the meeting include: review NTAP Charter, review NEFSC Trawl Survey, and discuss additional trawl research/complementary surveys.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, DoD.
Notice of Intent (NOI).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), San Francisco District, has received a permit application for a Department of the Army permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 403) from the Santa Clara Valley Water Control District to construct flood conveyance features and to deepen and widen Upper Llagas Creek (Proposed Action). As part of the permit process, the Corps is evaluating the environmental effects associated with construction and implementation of these additional flood protection measures within the communities of Morgan Hill, San Martin, and Gilroy.
The primary federal involvement associated with the Proposed Action is the discharge of fill material within federal jurisdictional areas and Waters of the United States and work within Navigable Waters of the United States. In addition, the Proposed Action could have potential significant effects on the human environment. Therefore, the Corps will prepare an EIS in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to render a final decision on the Santa Clara Valley Water District's permit application. The Corps' decision will be to either issue or deny a Department of the Army permit for the Proposed Action. The Draft EIS is intended to be sufficient in scope to address federal, state, and local requirements and environmental issues concerning the Proposed Action and permit review.
Questions about the Proposed Action and Draft EIS should be directed to Mr. James Mazza, Corps Regulatory Project Manager, by telephone at (415) 503-6775 or by email at
1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
2.
(a) NRCS Alternative: The NRCS Alternative would provide an increased level of flood management for urban areas, specifically: 1 percent flood in Morgan Hill (Reaches 8, 7A, and 7B); 10-percent flood management for the semi-urban area around East Little Llagas Creek (Reach 14); and, avoid induced flooding elsewhere on Llagas Creek (Reaches 6, 5, and 4) due to upstream improvements.
(b) Culvert/Channel Alternative: The Culvert/Channel Alternative would eliminate the need for channel deepening and widening through residential properties, as proposed for the NRCS Alternative between West Main Avenue and West 2nd Street in Reach 8.
(c) Reach 6 Bypass Alternative: The Reach 6 Bypass Alternative would construct a high flow bypass channel between Reach 6 of Llagas Creek and Reach 14 of East Little Llagas Creek. The bypass channel in Reach 6 would intersect with U.S. Highway 101. Therefore, construction of new bridges under the existing north and south bound lanes of the existing U.S. Highway 101 would be required to accommodate the bypass channel. A culvert would also be required under Murphy Road. Reach 14 would need to be enlarged (deeper and wider) to a greater extent than under the other alternatives to maintain a 10-year flood capacity, while preventing induced flooding from the upstream improvements. The bypass would be designed so that no flood capacity improvements would be needed along the Llagas Creek section of Reach 6 downstream from the bypass channel or Reach 5. A hydraulic diversion structure would be required within Llagas Creek upstream to divert high flows into the bypass channel, and which would also allow the existing range of lower flows to continue downstream in Reach 6. In Reach 8 this alternative is exactly same as the design of the Tunnel Alternative, including the construction of a tunnel and the sediment detention basin.
(d) No Action: The “No Action” alternative is one that results in no action requiring a Department of the Army permit.
3.
(a) The Corps is furnishing this notice to: (1) Advise other Federal and state agencies, affected Tribes, and the public of our intentions; (2) announce the initiation of a 30-day scoping period; and (3) obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues and alternatives to be included in the Draft EIS. The Corps invites comments from all interested parties to ensure that the full range of issues related to the permit request is addressed and that all significant issues are identified. We will accept written comments until 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
(b) Significant issues to be analyzed in the Draft EIS include: Aesthetics/visual quality, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, cumulative impacts, environmental justice, flood protection, geology/soils, growth inducement, land use/planning, noise/vibration, public health and safety, public services/utilities, recreation, socioeconomics, threatened and endangered species, traffic/circulation, water resources including wetlands, and other issues identified through scoping, public involvement, and interagency coordination.
(c) The Corps will conduct an environmental review of the Proposed Action in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, 1969 as amended, (42 U.S.C. 4321
4.
5.
Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Final Waiver and Extension.
For the 36-month grant projects funded in fiscal year (FY) 2011, using FY 2010 funds, under the Literacy Information and Communication System (LINCS) Regional Professional Development Centers (RPDC) program, the Secretary hereby waives the restriction against project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds, and extends the project period of the four LINCS RPDC grants for an additional 12 months. This enables the four current LINCS RPDC grantees that received awards under the FY 2011 competition that were extended for one additional year through FY 2014 using 2013 funds (through September 30, 2015), to seek another continuation award for one additional year through FY 2015 with FY 2014 funds (through September 30, 2016); and we will not announce a new LINCS RPDC competition for FY 2015.
This final waiver and extension of the project period is effective September 28, 2015.
Patricia Bennett, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 11013, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-7758 or by email at:
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.
On June 2, 2014, we published in the
On July 24, 2015, we published in the
There are no substantive differences between the proposed and final waivers and extensions.
We received 12 comments in response to our proposal, one of which did not address the proposed waiver and extension. Generally, we do not address comments that raise concerns not related to the proposed waiver and extension.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that a substantive rule must be published at least 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided for good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). The Secretary has determined that a delayed effective date is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. It is unnecessary because we received only 11 public comments on this action, all of which supported our proposal and we have not made any substantive changes to the proposal. It is contrary to public interest because we would not be able to make timely continuation grants to the four affected entities with the delay. Therefore, the Secretary waives the APA's delayed effective date provision for good cause.
The Secretary certifies that the waiver and extension and the activities
The small entities that will be affected by this waiver and extension are the four currently-funded LINCS RPDC grantees and any potential applicants for LINCS RPDC grants in FY 2015.
The Secretary further certifies that the waiver and extension will not have a significant economic impact on these LINCS RPDC entities because the waiver and extension impose minimal compliance costs to extend projects already in existence, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding will not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision. Furthermore, the costs of carrying out these activities could be paid for with program funds.
This final waiver and extension does not contain any information collection requirements.
The LINCS RPDC is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
29 U.S.C. 3332(c)(2)(G).
Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.
Notice.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.305L and 84.324L.
The Deputy Director for Policy and Research, delegated the duties of the Director, of the Institute of Education Sciences (Institute) announces the Institute's FY 2016 grant competition for Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Education Interventions and Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Special Education Interventions. The Deputy Director for Policy and Research takes this action under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. The Institute's purpose in awarding these grants is to support rigorous evaluations of education interventions that State educational agencies (SEAs) or local educational agencies (LEAs) believe will produce meaningful improvements in student outcomes within a short period (for example, within a single semester or academic year), that can be conducted at low cost, and that will provide policymakers with valid and useful results more rapidly than is typically achieved in education research.
The evaluations are to be carried out by partnerships between research institutions and SEAs or LEAs. Implementation of the intervention to be evaluated is to be supported by the SEA and/or LEA and not by the grant. The education intervention to be evaluated should be implemented and the key outcomes collected within the first year of the project, and the analysis and dissemination should be completed by the end of the second year of the project. In order to meet this schedule, projects should focus on interventions that are expected to produce meaningful results quickly (for example, within one semester or school year) and that rely on outcome measures that are readily available to researchers.
The Institute's National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) will hold one competition for the Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Special Education Interventions Grant Program (84.324L).
20 U.S.C. 9501
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent on the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from the FY 2016 competitions.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
The selection criteria, requirements concerning the content of an application, and review procedures for the competitions are contained in the RFAs.
2.
3.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Applications for grants under these competitions must be obtained from and submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also, note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants under Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Education Interventions, CFDA number 84.305L, and Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Special Education Interventions, CFDA number 84.324L, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant applications for the Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Education Interventions competition and the Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Special Education Interventions competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for the competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in the relevant RFA for your application.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Ellie Pelaez, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Room 600e, Washington, DC 20208. FAX: (202) 219-1466.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number:
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number:
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
6.
Regarding CFDA number 84.305L—Dr. Phill Gagne at
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Take notice that on September 9, 2015, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission's (FERC) regulations under and 18 CFR part 157 filed in Docket No. CP15-552-000, an application for certification and all authorizations necessary to construct and operate new natural gas transportation facilities in Gaines County, Texas, as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to: Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director Certificates and External Affairs, Northern Natural Gas Company, P.O. Box 3330, Omaha, Nebraska 68103-0330, Phone: (402) 398-7103, FAX: (402) 398-7592, Email:
Specifically, Northern proposes to construct and operate a greenfield
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 in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. 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 commenters 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 commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters 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 via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Land of the Sky MT, 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 13, 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 following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h. Licensee Contact: Rich Cavagnaro, VC Porterdale Hydroelectric, LLC, 5152 Belle Wood Court, Buford, GA 30518, (678) 730-6509,
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket Nos. ER13-1927, et al.,
Docket Nos. ER13-1923, et al.,
Docket No. EL15-32,
Docket No. ER13-1105,
For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6139 or
On August 21, 2015, the Commission issued an order announcing its intent to revoke the market-based rate authority of the public utilities listed in the caption of that order, which had failed to file their required Electric Quarterly Reports.
The time period for compliance with the August 21 Order has elapsed. The above-captioned companies failed to file their delinquent Electric Quarterly Reports. The Commission hereby revokes the market-based rate authority and terminates the electric market-based rate tariff of each of the companies who are named in the caption of this order.
On August 26, 2015, Empire State Hydro 303, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Texaco Dam Hydroelectric Project (project) to be located on the Susquehanna River, near the town of Fishkill, Dutchess County, New York. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An existing 22-foot-high, 205-foot-long masonry and concrete dam; (2) an existing intake structure, which conveys flow to the existing penstock; (3) an existing powerhouse approximately 20 feet long by 20 feet wide; (4) the powerhouse would house two equally sized proposed Kaplan turbines having a total installed capacity of 450 kilowatts; (5) a proposed 500-foot-long, 12,700-volt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 1.5 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission 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 following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
m.
n. Due to the applicant's close coordination with federal and state agencies during the preparation of the application, completed studies during pre-filing consultation, and agency recommended preliminary terms and conditions, we intend to waive scoping and expedite the exemption process. Based on a review of the application, resource agency consultation letters including the preliminary 30(c) terms and conditions, and comments filed to date, Commission staff intends to prepare a single environmental assessment (EA). Commission staff determined that the issues that need to be addressed in its EA have been adequately identified during the pre-filing period, which included a public scoping meeting and site visit, and no new issues are likely to be identified through additional scoping. The EA will consider assessing the potential effects of project construction and operation on geology and soils, aquatic, terrestrial, threatened and endangered species, recreation and land use, aesthetic, and cultural and historic resources.
o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
p. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” or “TERMS AND CONDITIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
q.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Radionuclides (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1100.15, OMB Control No. 2060-0249) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 28, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing the above referenced Docket ID Number 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.
Rajani Joglekar, Radiation Protection Division, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Mail Code 6608J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9462
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
The Board of Governors (Board) has approved enhancements to the Federal Reserve Banks' (Reserve Banks) same-day automated clearing house (ACH) service. The enhancements require receiving depository financial institutions (RDFIs) to participate in the service and originating depository financial institutions (ODFIs) to pay a fee to RDFIs for each same-day ACH forward transaction. The enhancements will be adopted by incorporation of NACHA's amended operating rules into Operating Circular 4, governing the Reserve Banks' ACH services.
Effective September 23, 2016.
Ian C.B. Spear, Senior Financial Services Analyst (202/452-3959); or Jessica Stahl, Economist (202/452-6452), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems; Evan H. Winerman, Senior Attorney (202/872-7578), Legal Division; for users of Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202/263-4869.
On May 27, 2015, the Board requested comment on proposed enhancements to the Reserve Banks' FedACH® SameDay Service (FedACH SameDay Service).
The ACH network serves as a ubiquitous, nationwide mechanism for processing batch-based credit and debit transfers electronically. The private sector and the Federal Reserve jointly developed the ACH network as an electronic alternative to checks, the growth of which in the late 1960s and early 1970s was creating operational and cost burdens. Currently, the ACH network consists of two network operators: The Reserve Banks, through FedACH, and The Clearing House (TCH), through the Electronic Payments Network (EPN). Both operators provide services to enable ODFIs to originate and RDFIs to receive ACH transactions. The Reserve Banks and TCH work together to exchange inter-operator ACH payments in which the ODFI and RDFI are served by different operators.
The ACH network is governed by the rules of the ACH operators, which generally incorporate the NACHA Operating Rules and Guidelines adopted by NACHA's members.
The Reserve Banks' current FedACH SameDay Service is an optional service that allows ODFI participants to originate same-day payments to all RDFI participants that agree to accept such payments.
Two aspects of NACHA's amended operating rules differ materially from the Reserve Banks' current FedACH SameDay Service. First, under NACHA's amended operating rules, receipt of same-day ACH transactions is mandatory and RDFIs must make funds available from same-day ACH credits to their depositors by 5:00 p.m.
These differences require enhancements to the Reserve Banks' existing FedACH SameDay Service that may have a significant longer-run effect on the nation's payment system.
• Making receipt of same-day ACH transactions mandatory for all RDFIs. If commenters believed that participation by RDFIs should not be mandatory, the Board requested comment on why the Reserve Banks' same-day ACH service should remain optional and whether there are non-mandatory alternatives to achieving ubiquity.
• Whether the interbank fee included in NACHA's amended operating rules equitably reapportions the initial implementation costs and ongoing operating costs between ODFIs and RDFIs.
The Board received forty comments in response to its request. Comments were submitted by depository institutions, depository institution trade associations, national and regional payments associations, associations representing end users (consumers and businesses) and third-party payment processors, a private-sector ACH operator, and an individual. Twenty-two commenters stated that receipt of same-day ACH transactions should be mandatory and that the interbank fee appropriately reapportions costs between ODFIs and RDFIs. Three commenters generally supported same-day ACH services but did not specifically address mandatory receipt or the equity of the interbank fee. Fifteen commenters expressed some concern with one or both of the topics on which the Board requested comment.
Thirty-seven commenters addressed mandatory receipt of same-day ACH transactions. Twenty-nine commenters believed that mandatory receipt is critical to the success of a same-day ACH service. These commenters, including seven small depository institutions or associations representing such institutions, generally agreed that mandating receipt is necessary to achieve a ubiquitous same-day ACH service that provides value to end users and depository institutions and achieves the associated public benefits that come from the enhanced efficiency of the ACH network. Making receipt of same-day transactions optional, they argue, would severely limit the benefits of any same-day ACH service. One commenter (one letter representing two merchant associations), which agreed that mandatory receipt is necessary to achieve a ubiquitous same-day ACH service, requested that the Board abandon same-day ACH services to develop real-time ACH processing.
Eight commenters, all credit unions or credit union associations, expressed concern that mandatory receipt of same-day ACH transactions would be overly burdensome on smaller depository institutions. These commenters indicated that technical and operational changes are necessary to receive same-day ACH transactions, and that small institutions will be disproportionately affected because they would be unable to adequately offset the associated costs of receiving such transactions because of their lower same-day ACH volume. Only three of these commenters suggested alternatives: Two commenters suggested that the Board exempt smaller depository institutions from any mandatory receipt requirements, and one commenter suggested limiting same-day ACH transactions to a single morning submission and afternoon settlement deadline to reduce the burden on smaller depository institutions.
The Board believes that the benefits of same-day ACH service outweigh the costs institutions would incur to implement such a service. Same-day ACH capability will facilitate the use of the ACH network for certain time-critical payments, accelerate final settlement, and improve funds availability to payment recipients.
The Board also believes that ubiquity is necessary to achieve these benefits. As with existing next-day ACH services, same-day ACH will be most efficient if originators can be certain that same-day ACH transactions will reach any banked receiver. If the same-day ACH service lacks this ubiquity, originators would be able to use the service to reach only a subset of their intended receivers, substantially reducing the attractiveness of the service. The Board believes, and commenters supporting mandatory receipt agreed, that the limited adoption of the Reserve Banks' current FedACH SameDay Service demonstrates an optional service cannot achieve the ubiquity necessary to establish a successful same-day ACH service. The Board agrees with the majority of commenters that mandating receipt of same-day ACH transactions is the only practical method to achieve that necessary ubiquity and the corresponding benefits. Moreover, the interbank fee, discussed below, is designed to address the concerns of RDFIs about same-day ACH implementation and operating costs.
Although the Board acknowledges the concerns raised by some commenters
The Board believes that a ubiquitous same-day ACH service will offer considerable pro-competitive benefits. Ubiquitous same-day ACH service could create a new mechanism to compete with payment methods other than ACH, and may do so at a lower cost. As stated above, for example, same-day ACH capability will facilitate the use of the ACH network for certain time-critical payments, accelerate final settlement, and improve funds availability to payment recipients. The Board believes that these capabilities will in turn provide a more efficient electronic payment option for person-to-person payments, expedited bill payments, same-day payroll payments, and other types of transactions.
The Board also does not believe that same-day ACH capabilities should be abandoned to pursue real-time ACH payments as suggested by the merchant associations' letter, but rather believes that both services would be complementary. As outlined in the Federal Reserve's
For these reasons, the Board has approved enhancements to the Reserve Banks' existing FedACH SameDay Service that make receipt of forward same-day ACH transactions mandatory for all RDFIs.
Thirty-four commenters addressed whether the interbank fee included in NACHA's amended operating rules equitably reapportions the initial implementation costs and ongoing operating costs between ODFIs and RDFIs.
Twenty-one commenters argued that an interbank fee of 5.2 cents is appropriate.
Ten commenters (nine credit unions or credit union associations and one bank holding company) supported an interbank fee but argued that the 5.2 cent fee is too low to allow smaller RDFIs to recover costs in a reasonable amount of time, particularly small RDFIs with limited same-day ACH volume. Two of these commenters suggested that the Board create a tiered fee structure instead of a flat fee, allowing smaller RDFIs to receive higher fees.
Two commenters (a large bank and one letter representing two merchant associations) opposed an interbank fee of any amount. The large bank commenter argued that any interbank fee will disproportionately compensate the largest RDFIs, resulting in unintended negative effects such as higher end-user fees. The merchant associations expressed concerns that the interbank fee will impair competition and may have antitrust implications. The large bank commenter requested that the Board proceed with a mandatory same-day ACH service without any interbank fee. The merchant associations believed that the Board lacks authority to require the Reserve Banks to collect and transfer an interbank fee. Several commenters expressed other concerns with the interbank fee: That NACHA would increase the interbank fee in the future, and that ODFIs would pass the interbank fee on to their customers using the service.
After considering the comments received, and given the rejection of NACHA's 2011 EPS proposal, the Board has concluded that in this specific instance an interbank fee is necessary to achieve a ubiquitous same-day ACH service.
In order to calculate a per-transaction interbank fee that would allow RDFIs in the aggregate to recover implementation and ongoing operational costs associated with the receipt of same-day ACH transactions, the Board believes that an appropriate methodology requires certain inputs: A projection of one-time implementation costs associated with same-day ACH receipt, a projection of ongoing costs associated with same-day ACH receipt, and projections of future same-day ACH volume. The process would include obtaining data from participants in the ACH system, estimating the relationship between costs and transaction volume, extrapolating those estimates to the broader universe of ACH participants, and projecting future costs and transaction volume.
NACHA commissioned a consultant to calculate the interbank fee. The Board has reviewed the consultant's methodology, which contained the inputs discussed above. The Board also reviewed the consultant's assumptions and judgments necessary to construct these inputs and use them to construct the fee. The Board believes the data and analysis provide a reasonable basis for the interbank fee, given the fact that NACHA had to collect data from voluntary respondents, make various projections into the future, and deal with significant non-response.
To facilitate its projections, the consultant surveyed a sample of RDFIs to obtain those banks' projected implementation and ongoing operational costs. The consultant also interviewed banks and third-party processors to understand the potential uses of same-day ACH. Based on interviews, the consultant determined that the largest RDFIs typically use internal systems to process ACH transactions, while other RDFIs typically outsource to third-party processors. Accordingly, the consultant asked only large RDFIs and third-party processors about one-time implementation costs. All surveyed RDFIs were asked about ongoing operational costs under three different same-day volume scenarios. Fourteen large RDFIs and 175 smaller RDFIs responded to the survey, yielding a sample with reasonable representation across RDFI sizes. The Board reviewed the survey instruments and cost data aggregated in seven groups according to RDFI size; NACHA did not make cost data of individual survey respondents available, citing confidentiality provisions under which the data were provided by RDFIs. The Board believes the survey instrument was reasonably designed to obtain the necessary data.
Using data from these RDFIs, the consultant estimated relationships between costs and volumes, and used these relationships to extrapolate to non-responding RDFIs. Projections of same-day ACH volume were based upon information from ODFIs, NACHA, and other subject matter experts. Projected adoption rates for ten broad use cases formed the basis for the projections of total same-day ACH volume. Given its projections of costs and volumes, the consultant chose a fee that, by its calculation, sets the present discounted value of aggregate projected RDFI interbank fee revenues equal to the present discounted value of aggregate projected RDFI costs for all RDFIs as a whole.
The Board recognizes that projections of future costs and volumes are inherently subjective, but believes the approach used to determine the interbank fee is reasonable. Specifically, interviews with industry participants and extensive review of potential use cases provided a reasonable basis for estimating future demand for a product that has not yet been introduced. Also, the collection of data from a sample of RDFIs of varying sizes through a survey was a sensible way to assess potential costs of the service. The Board not only reviewed the methodology used to calculate the fee, but also considered the implications of the fee for the ACH industry. The Board found the fee to be reasonable once NACHA addressed issues with respect to opportunity costs in the fee and the potential for the fee to rise over time, as described below.
NACHA issued its same-day ACH rule for public comment in December 2014. At that time, NACHA proposed an interbank fee of 8.2 cents. The calculation of that fee included opportunity costs resulting from the movement of transactions from higher-margin payments methods, such as wire, to same-day ACH, essentially transferring to same-day ACH the high margins that result from banks having market power in other services. In its final rule, NACHA removed the opportunity cost component of the fee, thereby lowering the fee from 8.2 to 5.2 cents.
The Board believes that the lower interbank fee of 5.2 cents reasonably balances depository institutions' ability to offset costs with the needs of ACH end users. As discussed above, a 5.2 cent interbank fee would allow cost recovery for RDFIs as a whole. Although the fee may not allow full cost recovery for all RDFIs, it will allow all RDFIs to offset a portion of their costs. The Board expects that, in most cases, the interbank fee will ultimately be borne by end users that originate same-day ACH transactions, a concern echoed by several commenters. For some originators, faster settlement or funds availability associated with same-day ACH may be worth these potentially higher costs, and their same-day ACH costs (even with the pass-through of the interbank fee) may still be substantially lower than the costs they would incur using other payment methods, such as wire transfers. Originators that wish to avoid such potential costs can continue to use existing lower-cost next-day ACH options and the Federal Reserve has no plans to eliminate its next-day ACH settlement. The Board believes that a higher interbank fee would likely result in higher costs being passed to originators and may reduce demand for
The Board has not adopted the suggestion to tier the fee to allow smaller institutions to recover more than the 5.2 cent fee because it does not believe there is a clear correlation between institution size and implementation costs. As described above, smaller RDFIs often outsource their ACH and transaction account processing, and may not incur costs as material as those RDFIs that do not outsource this processing.
The Board does not believe that the interbank fee will rise over time, as has been the experience in the card industry. To address this concern, NACHA proposed provisions that provided for the potential reduction in the fee, and adopted a rule to ensure that the fee could not be increased in the future. The Board recognizes that NACHA members could vote to amend NACHA's operating rules to allow the interbank fee to increase above 5.2 cents, but no such increase would apply to FedACH same-day volume unless the Board and the Reserve Banks (as ACH operator) agree to such an increase.
NACHA's amended operating rules also include a 5-year review and 8-year review of the fee. At each of these reviews, if the volume of same-day transactions exceeds the NACHA projection by more than 25 percent, the fee will be lowered to a level pre-calculated by NACHA and intended to allow RDFIs achieve cost recovery on an aggregate basis. A schedule of possible fee decreases is available on the Board's Web site.
Based on its review of these comments, the Board has approved enhancements to the Reserve Banks' existing FedACH SameDay Service to include an interbank fee paid by ODFIs to RDFIs not to exceed 5.2 cents for each forward same-day transaction and to decrease that fee according to the fee schedules published on the Board's public Web site in the event that same-day ACH volume exceeds projections by more than 25 percent during one of the regularly scheduled review periods. Any other changes to the interbank fee will require additional consideration and action by the Board.
The Board received comments on several other topics related to enhancements to the Reserve Banks' existing FedACH SameDay Service.
Several commenters raised questions about the processing and settlement windows for same-day ACH transactions. As noted above, one commenter asked the Board to consider a single morning submission and afternoon settlement deadline, while another commenter argued that institutions outside the Eastern Time Zone will only gain limited benefits from same-day ACH. A third commenter requested that the Board consider extending its National Settlement Service deadline to be inclusive of business hours in all U.S. time zones.
The Reserve Banks are reviewing the same-day ACH processing windows and will work with NACHA and EPN to establish processing schedules that are convenient for as many institutions as possible across the network. The Board has also previously expressed its intent to enhance the National Settlement Service and will review extended deadlines and potential enhancements as described in the Strategies Paper.
Several commenters noted an increased potential for fraud with same-day ACH transactions related to shorter processing windows. The Board recognizes that same-day ACH transactions may have a different risk profile than existing next-day ACH transactions. The Reserve Banks have in place alert services that can assist RDFIs in monitoring risk profiles specific to same-day ACH transactions, and the Board is aware that NACHA and the regional payment associations have already started reviewing risk management issues related to same-day ACH transactions. The Board believes that any risks related to same-day ACH can be appropriately mitigated by the industry in collaboration with NACHA and the ACH operators.
Several commenters expressed concerns that the availability of same-day ACH services would lead to the discontinuation or unnecessary migration away from low-cost next-day ACH services. The Board believes that next-day ACH services will remain relevant in light of likely continued demand by end users for low cost and efficient options for payments that do not require same-day settlement or processing, such as regularly scheduled payroll files or bill payments. Retaining next-day ACH service also reduces operational risk by allowing ODFIs and operators an opportunity to recover from disruptions without delaying the settlement of transactions.
The Federal Reserve has no plans to discontinue next-day services, but it cannot ensure that any given depository institution would continue to offer next-day ACH origination services to its customers. In a competitive marketplace for deposit and payment services, however, if a depository institution were to stop offering next-day ACH origination to its customers, the demand for that service would likely be met by other depository institutions.
The Board does not believe that ODFIs will cease offering next-day ACH origination in an effort to drive volume to same-day ACH transactions, thus increasing RDFI interbank fee revenue. If that were to happen, same-day ACH volume would far exceed the volume expectations used in calculating the 5.2 cent interbank fee, which would result in a reduction of the fee following the regularly scheduled reviews. The Board intends to monitor the adoption of same-day ACH and the continued availability of next-day ACH services. The Board will reevaluate the amount and appropriateness of any interbank fee if low-cost next-day ACH origination services are widely replaced by same-day ACH services, increasing costs to originators.
In considering new services and major service enhancements to existing Reserve Bank services, the Board requires the following criteria be met: the service must enable full long-run recovery of costs by the Reserve Banks; the service must yield a clear public benefit; and the service must be one that other providers alone cannot be expected to provide with reasonable effectiveness, scope, and equity.
The Board believes that the introduction of a FedACH same-day service with mandatory participation by RDFIs and an interbank fee meets these criteria.
The service also offers clear public benefits. Same-day ACH capability will facilitate the use of the ACH network for certain time-critical payments, accelerate final settlement, and improve funds availability to payment recipients. The Board believes that a ubiquitous same-day ACH service would enhance the efficiency of the ACH network and the broader U.S. payment system by providing a more efficient electronic payment option for person-to-person payments, expedited bill payments, same-day payroll payments, and other types of transactions. As several commenters noted, this is consistent with the strategic goals identified in the Strategies Paper.
The Board also believes that the private sector cannot be expected to provide the service alone with reasonable effectiveness, scope, or equity. Without incorporation of NACHA's amended operating rules by the Reserve Banks, a viable same-day ACH service would be unlikely.
When considering changes to an existing service, the Board also conducts a competitive impact analysis to determine whether there will be a direct and material adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete effectively with the Federal Reserve in providing similar services due to differing legal powers or the Federal Reserve's dominant market position deriving from such legal differences.
Based on its review of comments received, the Board has approved enhancements to the Reserve Banks' FedACH SameDay Service that require RDFIs to participate in the service and ODFIs to pay a fee to RDFIs for each same-day ACH forward transaction. The enhancements will be adopted by incorporation of NACHA's amended operating rules into Operating Circular 4, governing the Reserve Banks' ACH services.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for comments regarding the extension of a previously existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Notice of Radioactive Materials.
Submit comments on or before November 27, 2015.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0107, Notice of Radioactive Materials, by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0107, Notice of Radioactive Materials”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0107, Notice of Radioactive Materials” on your attached document.
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0107, Notice of Radioactive Materials.
Mr. Charles Gray, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-208-6726 or email
The clause at FAR 52.223-7, Notice of Radioactive Materials, requires contractors to notify the Government prior to delivery of items containing radioactive materials. The purpose of the notification is to alert receiving activities that appropriate safeguards may need to be instituted. The notice shall specify the part or parts of the items which contain radioactive materials, a description of the materials, the name and activity of the isotope, the manufacturer of the materials, and any other information known to the contractor which will put users of the items on notice as to the hazards involved.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it 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.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning North Carolina sales tax certification.
Submit comments on or before November 27, 2015.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0059, North Carolina Sales Tax Certification, by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0059, North Carolina Sales Tax Certification.
Kathy Hopkins, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA 202-969-7226 or email
The North Carolina Sales and Use Tax Act authorizes counties and incorporated cities and towns to obtain each year, from the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of North Carolina, a refund of sales and use taxes indirectly paid on building materials, supplies, fixtures, and equipment that become a part of or are annexed to any building or structure in North Carolina.
However, to substantiate a refund claim for sales or use taxes paid on purchases of building materials, supplies, fixtures, or equipment by a contractor, the Government must secure from the contractor certified statements setting forth the cost of the property purchased from each vendor and the amount of sales or use taxes paid. Similar certified statements by subcontractors must be obtained by the general contractor and furnished to the Government. The information is used as evidence to establish exemption from State and local taxes.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and whether it 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
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Authorized Negotiators. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before October 28, 2015.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators.
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-501-0650 or via email to
Per FAR 52.215-1(c)(2)(iv), firms offering supplies or services to the Government under negotiated solicitations must provide the names, titles, and telephone numbers of authorized negotiators to assure that discussions are held with authorized individuals. The information collected is referred to before contract negotiations and it becomes part of the official contract file.
Respondents:
Responses per Respondent:
Total Responses:
Hours per Response:
Total Burden Hours:
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and whether it 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.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning corporate aircraft costs. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before October 28, 2015.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0079, Corporate Aircraft Costs, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Kathy Hopkins, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202-969-7226 or via email
Government contractors that use company aircraft must maintain logs of flights containing specified information (
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and whether it 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.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for comments regarding the extension of a previously existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning submission of a Professional Employee Compensation Plan. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before October 28, 2015.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-501-3775 or email
FAR 22.1103 requires that all professional employees are compensated fairly and properly. Accordingly, FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, is required to be inserted in solicitations for negotiated service contracts when the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it 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.
Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0066, Professional Employee Compensation Plan, in all correspondence.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Integrity of Unit Prices. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before October 28, 2015.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-501-0650 or email
The clause at FAR 52.215-14, Integrity of Unit Prices, requires offerors and contractors under Federal contracts that are to be awarded without adequate price competition to identify in their proposals those supplies which they will not manufacture or to which they will not contribute significant value. The policies included in the FAR are required by 41 U.S.C. 3503 (a)(1)(A)(for the civilian agencies) and 10.U.S.C 2306a(b)(1)(A)(i)(for DOD and NASA). The rule contains no reporting requirements on contracts below the simplified acquisition threshold, construction and architect-engineering services, utility services, service contracts where supplies are not required, commercial items, and contracts for petroleum products.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it 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.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Notice.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is providing $1,300,000 in urgent funding through the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) Cooperative Agreement to the New York City Department of Health (NYC HD)to combat an outbreak of
Effective date is date of publication in the
Alvin Shultz, MSPH, Division of Preparedness and Emerging Infectious, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, GA 30333, Phone: 404-639-7028, E-Mail:
Alvin Shultz, MSPH, Division of Preparedness and Emerging Infectious, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious, Diseases Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 4204, Hyattsville, MD 20782 Phone: 301-458-4371, FAX: 301-458-4028, E-Mail:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public meeting and an opportunity for public comment on the topic of the labeling for lower-dose estrogen products delivered vaginally, intended to treat moderate to severe symptoms of vulvar and vaginal atrophy (VVA) due to menopause. Lower-dose estrogen products means products that contain less than the 0.625 milligrams (mg) of conjugated estrogens used in the Women's Health Initiative Study, and estradiol products containing 0.0375 mg and below. Lower-dose estrogen products are now approved for the treatment of moderate to severe symptoms of VVA due to menopause, and some in the scientific/medical community have questioned whether the current “Boxed Warnings” section in the labeling is applicable in whole or in part to these lower-dose estrogen products. This meeting, a scientific workshop, will provide an opportunity for FDA to seek input from experts on the Boxed Warnings section, estrogen exposure data, and pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) relationships relative to labeling lower-dose estrogen-alone products intended to treat moderate to severe symptoms of VVA due to menopause.
The public meeting will be held on November 10, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting must be received by October 16, 2015, with onsite registration available between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. the day of the meeting. See the
The meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, Section A of the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For more information on parking and security procedures, please refer to
Submit electronic comments to
FDA will post the agenda approximately 5 days before the meeting at
Kimberly Shiley, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 22, Rm. 5377, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-2117, email:
The loss of ovarian function with menopause leads to a drastic reduction in circulating estrogen concentration, which in turn leads to physiologic changes to the vulva, vagina, and lower urinary tract. Reduced circulating estrogen concentration results in an increase in vaginal pH, a thinning and reduction of the folds of the vaginal lining, reduction of vaginal secretions, and loss of elasticity in vaginal tissues. Symptoms of decreased circulating estrogen include vaginal and vulvar itching and/or irritation, vaginal dryness and vaginal pain (dyspareunia), and/or bleeding with intercourse. Not all
Estrogen-alone products have Boxed Warnings stating:
(1) There is an increased risk of endometrial cancer in a woman with a uterus who uses unopposed estrogen;
(2) estrogen-alone therapy should not be used for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or dementia;
(3) an increased risk of stroke and deep vein thrombosis was reported in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) estrogen-alone substudy; and
(4) an increased risk of probable dementia in postmenopausal women 65 years of age and older was reported in WHI Memory Study (WHIMS) estrogen-alone ancillary study.
The WHI estrogen-alone studies evaluated only a single estrogen dose consisting of 0.625 mg of conjugated estrogen. As lower-dose estrogen products are now approved for the treatment of moderate to severe symptoms of VVA due to menopause, some in the scientific/medical community have questioned whether these statements in the Boxed Warning section are applicable in whole or in part to the lower-dose estrogen products.
The scientific workshop on November 10th will include discussions of scientific challenges related to the following topics:
• The relevance to lower-dose estrogen products of the Boxed Warnings related to the WHI findings that: (1) Estrogens should not be used for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or dementia, (2) there is an increased risk of stroke and deep vein thrombosis in women treated with estrogen-alone, and (3) there is an increased risk of probable dementia in postmenopausal women 65 years of age and older treated with estrogen-alone.
• How to educate prescribers on the interpretation of estrogen exposure data across various estrogen dosage forms indicated for treatment of moderate to severe symptoms of vulvar and vaginal atrophy due to menopause. Presentation of basic PK and clinical pharmacology data concepts and an informed framework for comparing various estrogen products for prescribing purposes.
• Discuss the level of available data supporting that a given estrogen serum concentration is or is not related to adverse outcomes (for example, pulmonary emboli, deep venous thrombosis, and myocardial infarction).
• Presentation and discussion of PD biomarkers for thrombosis. Presentation of a comparison of metabolic profiles from various products, key clotting factors responsible for thrombosis, and PK/PD relationships.
If you wish to attend this meeting, email
Seating will be limited, so early registration is recommended. Registration is free and will be on a first-come, first-served basis. However, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization based on space limitations. Registrants will receive confirmation once they have been accepted. Onsite registration on the day of the meeting will be based on space availability. If you need special accommodations because of disability, please contact Kimberly Shiley (see
FDA will hold an open public comment session during the November 10th public meeting to give the public an opportunity to comment. Register for this session at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing a public meeting on the reauthorization of the Biosimilar User Fee Act (BsUFA) for fiscal years (FYs) 2018 through 2022. BsUFA authorizes FDA to collect user fees for the process for the review of biosimilar biological products. The current legislative authority for BsUFA expires in September 2017. At that time, new legislation will be required for FDA to continue collecting user fees in future fiscal years. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) requires that FDA begin the BsUFA reauthorization process by publishing a notice in the
The public meeting will be held on December 18, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting must be received by November 18, 2015. See section III of this document for information on how to register for the meeting. Submit written or electronic comments by January 19, 2016.
The meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, in section B and C of the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Participants must
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061. Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Transcripts of the meeting will be available on the FDA Web site approximately 30 days after the meeting.
Sandra Benton, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6340, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-1042, FAX: 301-847-3529,
On July 9, 2012, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, which included BsUFA (Pub. L. 112-144, title IV), was signed into law by the President. BsUFA authorizes FDA to collect fees for certain activities relating to biosimilar biological product development, for certain types of applications and supplements for approval of biosimilar biological products, on establishments where approved biosimilar biological products are made, and on biosimilar biological products after approval.
BsUFA's intent is to provide additional revenues so that FDA can hire more staff, improve systems, and establish a better managed biosimilar biological product review process to make biosimilar biological product therapies available to patients sooner without compromising review quality. As part of FDA's agreement with industry during the first BsUFA authorization, the Agency agreed to certain performance goals. These goals, which are captured in a Commitment Letter, apply to the process for the review of biosimilar biological product applications, including biosimilar biological product development meetings, review of applications and supplements, and other review activities.
Although BsUFA is similar to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) program in that it includes fees for marketing applications, manufacturing establishments, and products, there are some differences because of the relatively nascent state of the biosimilar industry in the United States. For example, at the time BsUFA was signed into law, there were no currently marketed biosimilar biological products. Accordingly, BsUFA includes fees for products in the development phase in order to generate fee revenue to support FDA's review work during this phase and enable sponsors to have meetings with FDA early in the development of biosimilar biological product candidates. Additional information concerning BsUFA, including the text of the law, the “Biosimilar Biological Product Authorization Performance Goals And Procedures—Fiscal Years 2013 Through 2017” (the Commitment Letter), key
FDA is announcing a public meeting on BsUFA. The authority for BsUFA expires at the end of September 2017. Without new legislation, FDA will no longer be able to collect user fees to fund the biosimilar biological product review process. Before FDA begins negotiations with the regulated industry on BsUFA reauthorization, the Agency is holding the public meeting announced in this notice, at which members of the public may present their views on reauthorization, including any suggestions for changes to the performance goals referred to in the Commitment Letter. In addition, FDA will provide a period of 30 days after the public meeting to obtain written comments from the public. The purpose of this public meeting is to hear stakeholder views as we consider whether to retain, change, or discontinue the current BsUFA performance goals in the next BsUFA. In addition to any other relevant information the public would like to share, the FDA is interested in responses to the following two general questions:
• What is your assessment of the overall performance of the BsUFA program to date?
• What aspects of BsUFA performance goals should be retained, changed, or discontinued to further strengthen and improve the program?
The meeting will likely include presentations by FDA and a series of panels representing different stakeholder groups. We will also provide an opportunity for other stakeholders to provide public comment at the meeting. FDA policy issues are beyond the scope of these reauthorization discussions. Accordingly, the comments should focus on process enhancements and funding issues, and not on policy issues.
If you wish to attend this meeting, visit
In addition, any person may submit written or electronic comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at
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 Janie Kim at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “M7(R1) Addendum to ICH M7: Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk; Application of the Principles of the ICH M7 Guidance to Calculation of Compound-Specific Acceptable Intakes.” The draft guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). This draft guidance, an addendum to the ICH M7 guidance of May 28, 2015, provides guidance on acceptable intake limits derived for some chemicals that are considered to be mutagens and carcinogens, and that were selected because they are commonly used in pharmaceutical manufacturing or are useful in illustrating the principles for deriving compound-specific intakes as described in ICH M7. The draft
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115 (g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by November 27, 2015.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.
ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products among three regions: Europe, Japan, and North America. The eight ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; CDER and CBER, FDA; the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; Health Canada; and Swissmedic. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).
The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World Health Organization.
In June 2015, the ICH Steering Committee agreed that the following draft guidance should be made available for public comment: “M7(R1) Addendum to ICH M7: Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk; Application of the Principles of the ICH M7 Guidance to Calculation of Compound-Specific Acceptable Intakes.” The draft guidance is the product of the Expert Working Group of the ICH. Comments about this draft will be considered by FDA and the Expert Working Group.
The draft guidance provides guidance on acceptable intake limits derived for some chemicals that are considered to be mutagens and carcinogens and that were selected because they are commonly used in pharmaceutical manufacturing or are useful in illustrating the principles of deriving compound-specific intakes as described in ICH M7. The default method from ICH M7 of linear extrapolation from the cancer potency estimate, TD
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the fee rate for using a rare pediatric disease priority review
Robert J. Marcarelli, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14202F, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7223.
Section 908 of FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-144) added section 529 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff). In section 529 of the FD&C Act, Congress encouraged development of new human drugs and biological products for prevention and treatment of certain rare pediatric diseases by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act, the sponsor of an eligible human drug application submitted 90 days or more after July 9, 2012, for a rare pediatric disease (as defined in section 529(a)(3)) shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the rare pediatric disease product application. The recipient of a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher may either use the voucher for a future human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)) or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a)), or transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another party that may then use it for a human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act. A priority review is a review conducted with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. Information regarding PDUFA goals is available at
The applicant that uses a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher is entitled to a priority review of its eligible human drug application, but must pay FDA a rare pediatric disease priority review user fee in addition to any fee required by PDUFA for the application. Information regarding the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher program is available at:
This notice establishes the rare pediatric disease priority review fee rate for FY 2016 at $2,727,000 and outlines FDA's procedures for payment of rare pediatric disease priority review user fees. This rate is effective on October 1, 2015, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2016.
Under section 529(c)(2) of the FD&C Act, the amount of the rare pediatric disease priority review user fee is determined each fiscal year based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application that is not subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year. The rare pediatric disease priority review voucher fee is intended to cover the incremental costs for FDA to do a priority review on a human drug application that would otherwise get a standard review. The formula provides the Agency with the added resources to conduct a priority review while still ensuring a robust rare pediatric disease priority review voucher program that is consistent with the Agency's public health goal of encouraging the development of new human drugs and biological products for rare pediatric diseases.
A priority review is a review conducted with a PDUFA goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. Under the PDUFA goals letter, FDA has committed to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of the applications granted priority review status within this expedited timeframe. Normally, an application for a human drug or biological product will qualify for priority review if the product is intended to treat a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. An application that does not receive a priority designation will receive a standard review. Under the PDUFA goals letter, FDA has committed to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of standard applications within 10 months of the receipt or filing date depending on the type of application. A priority review involves a more intensive level of effort and a higher level of resources than a standard review.
Section 529 of the FD&C Act specifies that the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher fee amount must be based on the difference between the average cost incurred by the Agency in the review of a human drug application subject to a priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred by the Agency in the review of a human drug application not subject to a priority review in the previous fiscal year. FDA is setting a fee for FY 2016, which is to be based on standard cost data from the previous fiscal year, FY 2015. However, the FY 2015 submission cohort has not been closed out yet, thus the cost data for FY 2015 are not complete. The latest year for which FDA has complete cost data is FY 2014. Furthermore, because FDA has never tracked the cost of reviewing applications that get priority review as a separate cost subset, FDA estimated this cost based on other data that the Agency has tracked. FDA uses data that the Agency estimates and publishes on its Web site each year—standard costs for review. FDA does not publish a standard cost for “the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.” However, we expect all such applications would contain clinical data. The standard cost application categories with clinical data that FDA publishes each year are: (1) New drug applications (NDAs) for a new molecular entity (NME) with clinical data and (2) biologics license applications (BLAs) with clinical data.
The standard cost worksheets for FY 2014 show standard costs (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars) of $5,646,000 for an NME NDA, and $5,533,000 for a BLA. Based on these standard costs, the total cost to review the 48 applications in these two categories in FY 2014 (30 NME NDAs and 18 BLAs with clinical data) was
Where “α” is the cost of a standard review and “α times 1.67” is the cost of a priority review. Using this formula, the cost of a standard review for NME NDAs and BLAs is calculated to be $3,989,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars) and the cost of a priority review for NME NDAs and BLAs is 1.67 times that amount, or $6,662,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars). The difference between these two cost estimates, or $2,673,000, represents the incremental cost of conducting a priority review rather than a standard review.
For the FY 2016 fee, FDA will need to adjust the FY 2014 incremental cost by the average amount by which FDA's average costs increased in the 3 years prior to FY 2015, to adjust the FY 2014 amount for cost increases in FY 2015. That adjustment, published in the
The fee rate for FY 2016 is set out in table 1:
Under section 529(c)(4)(A) of the FD&C Act, the priority review user fee is due (
The rare pediatric disease priority review fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for any application that is received on or after October 1, 2015. In order to comply with this requirement, the sponsor must contact FDA before providing official notification of its intent to use the voucher.
FDA will issue an invoice to the sponsor who has incurred a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher fee when it receives the sponsor's notification of intent to use the voucher. The invoice will include instructions on how to pay the fee via wire transfer or check.
As noted in section II, if a sponsor uses a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher for a human drug application, the sponsor would incur the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher fee in addition to any PDUFA fee that is required for the application. The sponsor would need to follow FDA's normal procedures for timely payment of the PDUFA fee for the human drug application.
The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
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, NIDCD.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS, 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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 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.
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.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 2,879.
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.
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.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 70,260.
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.
Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, October 23, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to October 23, 2015, 5:00 p.m., Courtyard by Marriott, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD, 20815 which was published in the
The meeting has been cancelled due to the reassignment of applications.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.
Notice; correction.
On June 8, 2015, FEMA published in the
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 28, 2015.
The Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where applicable, the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1511, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed in the table below, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report are made final.
In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 80 FR 32396 in the June 8, 2015, issue of the
In this document, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously published.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gives notice of the availability of the “National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility Think and Do Challenge” ideation prize competition and rules. The DHS Science and Technology Directorate (DHS S&T) Research and Development Partnerships (RDP) Group Office of National Labs (ONL) is seeking individuals and entities with unique ideas and concepts to jump start the development of an innovation ecosystem focused on Bio/Agro Security. Innovation ecosystems typically consist of the people, institutions, policies and resources that promote the translation of new ideas into products, processes and services. This innovation ecosystem will support one of DHS's major infrastructure investments: The National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). This prize competition seeks novel approaches to build one or more pieces of the innovation ecosystem. The novel approach will result in enhancement to innovation, collaboration, training, and talent, therefore enhancing the NBAF mission. Cash prize(s) awarded from this competition are intended to fund a portion of the operating budget for the idea(s) and associated business plan(s) that provides the best solution to build one or more pieces of an innovation ecosystem that aligns to the needs of the NBAF mission. The total cash prize payout for this competition is up to $100,000 (USD) with at least one cash prize of $15,000 (USD) and no award will be less than $15,000 (USD). The awards and amounts will be paid to the best submission(s) as solely determined by the Seeker.
This prize competition consists of the following unique features:
• Terminology
○ Seeker: DHS S&T Office of National Labs
○ Solvers: Ideation Prize competition submitters
• The Solvers are not required to transfer exclusive intellectual property rights to the Seeker. (See Additional Information-Intellectual Property below)
Questions about this prize competition may be emailed to
The America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Reauthorization Act of 2010 (The America COMPETES Act), Public Law 111-358, enacted January 4, 2011, authorizes Federal agencies to issue competitions to stimulate innovations that could advance their missions. Interested persons can find full details about the competition rules and register to participate online at
Without a smart strategy, a new laboratory may struggle to capitalize on the benefits of collaboration, innovation, talent and training that are necessary to support the mission over time. The NBAF “Think and Do Challenge” is an opportunity for thinkers, doers, and entrepreneurs to offer fresh approaches, unique ideas or proven methods to jumpstart development of an instrument that enhances the NBAF's role in shaping bio/agro security for the 21st Century.
According to the World Health Organization, approximately 75 percent of new and emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic diseases which may be transmitted from animals to humans. The United States currently does not have a laboratory facility with maximum biocontainment (BSL-4) space to study high-consequence zoonotic diseases affecting large livestock. NBAF will be the first laboratory facility in the United States to provide BSL-4 laboratories capable of housing cattle and other large livestock. NBAF will also feature a vaccine development module to augment its laboratory research and accelerate the transfer of new science and technology into the marketplace. See
NBAF's location in Manhattan, Kansas, places it within the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor, the largest concentration of animal health companies in the world. NBAF will be constructed and operated on a secure federally owned site on the northwest corner of the Kansas State University (KSU), adjacent to KSU's Biosecurity Research Institute in Pat Roberts Hall. NBAF will play a leading role in protecting the nation's health and food supply as part of an integrated, advanced bio/agro security innovation system (BASIS). This system is designed to materially enhance public/private sector cooperation and collaboration, leverage stakeholder knowledge and capabilities, accelerate the transition of technologies and products into the marketplace, and enable skilled training, talent development, and regional economic growth. BASIS is strengthened by NBAF's proximity to a network of organizations with veterinary, agricultural, and animal pharmaceutical expertise.
A video presentation that outlines the strategic vision of the innovation ecosystem can be found at
While a number of the features are in place to establish an innovation ecosystem focused on Bio/Agro Security surrounding the NBAF, DHS S&T would like to maximize the potential for the NBAF to serve as a focal point for the ecosystem's components. Notional pieces of an innovation ecosystem include the following examples: Training Component: The prize competition winner would receive a cash prize to develop a certificate program for the training of animal care handlers in a biocontainment environment; Talent Component: The prize competition winner would receive a cash prize to develop a large animal veterinary student exchange program for exposure to the research in a biocontainment environment; Innovation Component: The prize competition winner would receive a cash prize to jump-start a business plan that would accelerate agricultural technologies to market; Collaboration Component: The prize competition winner would receive a cash prize to accelerate novel tools to facilitate virtual research collaboration across long distances or other barriers (
The concepts above are provided as illustrations. Solvers are encouraged to develop their own concepts or to build upon the ideas above. Proposed Solutions should pursue economic, scientific, educational and technical opportunities that will advance the development of a vital innovation ecosystem around NBAF, comprising elements of innovation, collaboration, talent, and training.
Submissions to this prize competition shall include a written business plan consisting of five sections that address each topic below as applicable. Business plans must clearly articulate an understanding of the solution and its impact in providing high-value, creative and specialized talent, training,
Proposed Solution Rating System (1-10 points for each criterion).
Judges and their Organization:
15 U.S.C. 3719.
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to update and reissue a current Department of Homeland Security system of records titled “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-010 Asset Management Records System of Records.” This system allows the Department of Homeland Security to collect and maintain records of all Department-owned or controlled property that has been issued to DHS employees and contractors. As a result of a biennial review of this system, the Department of Homeland Security is updating this system of records notice to update the (1) category of records, (2) routine uses, (3) reflect an additional system location, and (4) update the record source categories. Additionally, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice.
Submit comments on or before October 28, 2015. This updated system will be effective October 28, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS- 2015-0063by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general and privacy questions please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to update and reissue a current DHS system of records titled, “DHS/ALL-010 Asset Management Records System of Records.”
This system allows DHS to collect and maintain records of all Department-owned or controlled property that has been issued to DHS employees and contractors. DHS is updating this System of Records (SORN) to provide notice that asset management activities for three DHS Components: Domestic and Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG), are transferring their financial management systems to the Department of Interior's (DOI) Oracle Federal Financials (OFF) Virtual
DHS is updating the category of records to replace Social Security number with Employee ID number and remove “outstanding debts related to said property.” After surveying asset managers throughout the Department, DHS confirmed that Social Security numbers are not used for tracking Departmental assets. Some Components, however, use an Employee ID number that is not the Social Security number. Outstanding debts related to DHS assets are more appropriately covered under the existing DHS/ALL-008 Accounts Receivable System of Records (73 FR 61885, October 17, 2008). DHS is also publishing an update the DHS/ALL-008 concurrent with this SORN. DHS is updating the system location to provide notice that DHS information will be maintained at DOI.
DHS is adding a new routine use I to permit DHS to share records with the Merit Systems Protection Board, arbitrators, the Federal Labors Relations Authority, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other parties responsible for the administration of the Federal Labor-Management Program, to align with other DHS SORNs. DHS is also updating and renumbering routine use J (formerly routine use I), which will allow DHS to share information with federal agencies that host shared financial services, such as DOI's web-based financial management application. DHS is updating the record source categories to remove “employee locator documentation” because this is not a source of information for the categories of individuals and records in this system of records. Additionally, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice.
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/ALL-010 Asset Management Records system of records may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, and international government agencies, members of the public, and other entities consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
This updated system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass United States citizens and legal permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors. Individuals may request access to their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of DHS by complying with DHS Privacy Act regulations, 6 CFR part 5.
The Privacy Act requires that each agency publish in the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this revised system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ALL-010
DHS/ALL-010 Asset Management Records
Unclassified.
DHS maintains records at several Headquarters locations and in Component offices of DHS, in both Washington, DC and field locations. DHS also maintains records in the Department of Interior's (DOI) Oracle Federal Financials (OFF) Virtual Environment in Reston, VA and Denver, CO.
Categories of individuals covered by this system include all current and former DHS employees and contractors assigned government-owned assets (
Categories of records maintained in this system include:
• Individual's name;
• Employee ID number; enter Email address;
• Office name;
• Office location;
• Office telephone number;
• Property management records, which include information on government-owned property (
5 U.S.C. 301; the Federal Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 3101; 40 U.S.C. 121; and 41 CFR Chapter 101.
The purpose of this system is to track all DHS-owned or controlled property that has been issued to current and former DHS employees and contractors.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records of information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the United States Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body when it is relevant
1. DHS or any Component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) or harm to the individual who relies upon the compromised information; and
3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To unions recognized as exclusive bargaining representatives under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. 7111 and 7114.
I. To the Merit Systems Protection Board, arbitrators, the Federal Labors Relations Authority, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other parties responsible for the administration of the Federal Labor-Management Program for the purpose of processing any corrective actions, or grievances, or conducting administrative hearings or appeals, or if needed in the performance of other authorized duties.
J. To federal agencies that provide financial management services for DHS Components under a cross-servicing agreement for purposes such as budgeting, purchasing, procurement, reimbursement, asset management, reporting, and collection functions.
K. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
None.
DHS stores records in this system electronically in multiple databases or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records are stored on magnetic disc, tape, digital media, and CD-ROM.
DHS retrieves data by name or employee ID number.
DHS safeguards records in this system in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. DHS limits access to the computer system containing the records to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
DHS destroys records in accordance with the NARA General Record Schedule 3, Inventory Files (NC1-64-77-5 item 10b), and are destroyed two years after equipment is removed from agency control.
The Chief Readiness Support Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, including DHS records hosted by another federal agency under a cross-servicing agreement for financial management services, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Headquarters or Component's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy and FOIA Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which Component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS Component agency may have responsive records;
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the Component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
Records are generated from property purchase orders and receipts; acquisition, transfer and disposal of data; or otherwise from the record subject.
None.
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to update and reissue a current Department of Homeland Security system of records notice titled, “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-019 Payroll, Personnel and Time and Attendance Records System of Records.” This system of records allows the Department of Homeland Security to collect and maintain records on current and former Department of Homeland Security employees to track time worked, leave, or other absences for reporting and compliance purposes, and also to ensure proper payment of salary and benefits. As a result of a biennial review of this system, records have been updated within the (1) category of records and (2) routine uses. Additionally, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and texts of the previously published notice. This updated system will be included in the Department's inventory of record systems.
Submit comments on or before October 28, 2015. This new system will be effective October 28, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2015-0038 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general or privacy questions please contact: Karen L. Neuman (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to update and reissue a current DHS system of records titled, “DHS/ALL-019 Payroll, Personnel, and Time and Attendance Records System of Records.”
This system helps DHS ensure proper payment of salary and benefits to DHS personnel and track time worked and leave or other absences (both excused and unexcused) for reporting and compliance purposes. The categories of records have been modified to include more specific details about information collected from current and former employees of DHS. In some instances, DHS Components may use a timekeeping system that relies on a hash identification number calculated from a finger scan. The hash identification number cannot be used to recreate a readable fingerprint to confirm the employee's identity. DHS is also modifying routine uses (A), (G), and (I) to provide greater clarity and non-substantive grammatical changes. DHS is amending the previous routine use (J) to eliminate a redundancy with 5 U.S.C. 552a (b)(11). New routine uses (P) through (Z) provide notice and transparency about external disclosures as part of the DHS payroll, time, and attendance process.
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/ALL-019 Payroll, Personnel, and Time and Attendance Records may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, and international government agencies, members of the public, and other entities consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
This updated system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which federal government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. This system covers that defined group, but as a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors. Below is the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this revised system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ALL-019
DHS/ALL-019 Payroll, Personnel, and Time and Attendance Records.
Unclassified.
Records are maintained at several Headquarters locations; in Component offices of DHS, in both Washington, DC and at field locations; and at DHS contractual or other federal agency payroll service provider locations.
Current and former employees of DHS.
Categories of records in this system include:
• Social Security number;
• Employee's name;
• Date of birth;
• Gender, Race/National Origin, and Disability Data;
• Address data such as home mailing address, email address, work address, etc.;
• Duty location;
• Position Data such as job title, occupational series, grade, step, pay plan, etc.;
• Awards and bonuses;
• Employment verification information;
• Education and training data;
• Military and veteran data;
• Taxes;
• Other deductions;
• Garnishments;
• Salary data;
• Retirement data;
• Pay period;
• Fiscal year data;
• Benefits; and
• Direct deposit information.
• Employee's name;
• Duty location such as work address or Port of Entry;
• Supervisor name;
• Timekeeper name;
• Position Data such as job title, occupational series, grade, step, pay plan;
• Fingerprint hash identification number calculated from a finger scan that cannot be used to recreate a readable fingerprint;
• Time-off awards or incentives;
• Number and type of hours worked. Type of hours worked may include:
Regular Hours Worked;
Regular law enforcement availability pay (LEAP);
Overtime (including administratively uncontrollable overtime (AUO));
Telework;
Night Differential;
Compensatory time earned and used;
Compensatory travel earned and used;
Training time;
Tour of duty; and
Military leave.
• All forms of leave requests, balances, and credits, including Leave Without Pay (LWOP);
• All other absence types, including Absent Without Leave (AWOL) and Suspension;
• Information necessary to administer any of the agency's voluntary leave transfer programs including leave donated or used and any supporting documentation from the leave requestor (which may include medical records);
• Any other forms of leave available to current and former employees of DHS;
• Investigative case title and tracking number (used to track time worked associated with a specific case); and
• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) compensation.
• Nature of action codes;
• Civil service authority codes;
• Standard remarks;
• Signature block table;
• Position title table;
• Financial organization table; and
• Salary tables.
31 U.S.C. 66a; 5 U.S.C. 5501
The purpose of this system is to ensure proper payment of salary and benefits to DHS personnel, and to track time worked, leave, or other absences for reporting and compliance purposes.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other federal agencies conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any Component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his or her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his or her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The U.S. Government or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. §§ 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative
G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, territorial, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To provide information to unions recognized as exclusive bargaining representatives under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7111 and 7114.
I. To designated officers and employees of federal, state, tribal, territorial, local, or international agencies in connection with the hiring or continued employment of an individual, the conduct of a suitability or security investigation of an individual, the grant, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance, or the certification of security clearances, to the extent that DHS determines the information is relevant and necessary to the hiring agency's decision.
J. To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations or in connection with criminal law proceedings.
K. To the other federal agencies who provide payroll personnel processing services under a cross-servicing agreement for purposes relating to the conversion of DHS employee payroll and personnel processing services; the issuance of paychecks to employees and distribution of wages; and the distribution of allotments and deductions to financial and other institutions, some through electronic funds transfer.
L. To federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local agencies for use in locating individuals and verifying their income sources to enforce child support orders, to establish and modify orders of support, and for enforcement of related court orders.
M. To provide wage and separation information to another federal agency as required by law for payroll purposes.
N. To the Office of Personnel Management, the Merit System Protection Board, Federal Labor Relations Authority, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in the performance of their authorized duties.
O. To the Department of Labor in connection with a claim filed by an employee for compensation due to a job-connected injury or illness.
P. To the Department of the Treasury to issue checks.
Q. To State offices of unemployment compensation with survivor annuity or health benefits claims or records reconciliations.
R. To Federal Employee's Group Life Insurance or Health Benefits carriers in connection with survivor annuity or health benefits claims or records reconciliations.
S. To the Internal Revenue Service and State and local tax authorities for which an employee is or was subject to tax regardless of whether tax is or was withheld in accordance with Treasury Fiscal Requirements, as required.
T. To officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71 for the purpose of providing information as to the identity of DHS employees contributing union dues each pay period and the amount of dues withheld from each contributor.
U. To any source from which additional information is requested by DHS relevant to a DHS determination concerning an individual's pay, leave, or travel expenses, to the extent necessary to identify the individual, inform the source of the purpose(s) of the request, and to identify the type of information requested.
V. To the Office of Management and Budget at any stage in the legislative coordination and clearance process in connection with private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19.
W. To the Social Security Administration and the Department of the Treasury to disclose pay data on an annual basis.
X. To a federal agency or in response to a congressional inquiry when additional or statistical information is requested relevant to the DHS Transit Fare Subsidy Program.
Y. To the Department of Health and Human Services for the purpose of providing information on new hires and quarterly wages as required under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
Z. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information or when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(12): Disclosures may be made from this system to consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. § 3701(a)(3)).
DHS stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records are stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
DHS may retrieve records by an individual's name, Social Security number, position, organizational element, pay period, investigative case title or tracking number (for time worked associated with a specific case), and/or fiscal year.
DHS safeguards records in this system in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the stored information. DHS limits access to the computer system containing the records in this system to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
In accordance with NARA General Records Schedule 2, Item 7, time and attendance records are destroyed after a Government Accountability Office audit or when six years-old; whichever is sooner. In accordance with NARA General Records Schedule 2, Item 1(b),
For DHS Headquarters, the System Manager is the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. For Components of DHS, the System Manager is the respective Human Capital Officer of the component.
Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, including DHS records hosted by another federal agency under a cross-servicing agreement for financial management services, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Chief Privacy Officer and the Headquarters or Component's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief FOIA Officer on the Department's Web site at
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you.
• Identify which Component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you.
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created.
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records.
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without this bulleted information the Component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
Records are obtained from the individual.
None.
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to update and reissue a current Department of Homeland Security system of records titled “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-007 Accounts Payable System of Records.” This system allows the Department of Homeland Security to collect and maintain payment records. As a result of a biennial review of this system, the Department of Homeland Security is updating this system of records notice to reflect an updated category of records, an additional system location, an updated routine use, and an updated retention schedule. Additionally, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice.
Submit comments on or before October 28, 2015. This updated system will be effective October 28, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2015-0061 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general and privacy questions please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to update and reissue a current DHS system of records titled, “DHS/ALL-007 Accounts Payable System of Records.” DHS uses the information collected in this system of records to meet its obligation to manage Departmental funds and ensure that DHS pays its creditors, including DHS employees for travel related reimbursements, and ensures that DHS has an accurate accounting of the money it owes. DHS is updating this SORN to provide notice that financial management activities for three DHS Components: Domestic and Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG), are transferring their financial management services to the Department of Interior's (DOI) Oracle Federal Financials (OFF) Virtual Environment. OFF is an application
DHS is updating the category of records to include general contact information, such as phone numbers, FASCIMILE numbers, and email addresses in recognition that DHS may contact vendors or employees via other methods than standard mail. DHS is updating the system location to provide notice that DHS information will be maintained at DOI.
DHS is adding a new routine use I to permit DHS to share records with the Merit Systems Protection Board, arbitrators, the Federal Labors Relations Authority, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other parties responsible for the administration of the Federal Labor-Management Program, to align with other DHS SORNs. DHS is also updating and renumbering routine use J (formerly routine use I), which will allow DHS to share information with federal agencies that host shared financial services, such as DOI's web-based financial management application. DHS updated the retention period to reflect the new General Records Schedule 1.1, which modified the retention period for financial transaction records from six years and three months to exactly six years. Additionally, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice.
This system of records does not include information to enable travel service providers under contract to the federal government to authorize, issue, or account for travel and travel reimbursements provided to individuals on official federal government business, which are covered under GSA/GOVT-4 Contracted Travel Services Program, 74 FR 26700 (June 3, 2009).
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/ALL-007 Accounts Payable system of records may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, and international government agencies, members of the public, and other entities consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
This updated system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors. Individuals may request access to their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of DHS by complying with DHS Privacy Act regulations, 6 CFR part 5.
The Privacy Act requires that each agency publish in the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this revised system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ALL-007.
DHS/ALL-007 Accounts Payable Records
Unclassified.
DHS maintains records at several Headquarters locations and in Component offices of DHS, in both Washington, DC and field locations. DHS also maintains records in the Department of Interior's (DOI) Oracle Federal Financials (OFF) Virtual Environment in Reston, VA and Denver, CO.
Categories of individuals include any individual or organization that serves as a creditor to DHS, including parties in interest for which reimbursable services are performed and employees for travel related reimbursements.
Categories of records in this system includes:
• Individual's name;
• Tax identification number, which may be a Social Security number in certain instances;
• Addresses and other general contact information, such as phone numbers, FASCIMILE numbers, or email addresses;
• Importer of record number;
• Records of expenses (bills, refund checks, out-of-pocket travel expenses);
• Records of payments;
• Disbursement schedules;
• Monies owed; and
• Electronic financial institution data.
5 U.S.C. § 301; 5 U.S.C. § 5701
The purpose of this system is to collect and maintain the information from individuals in connection with reimbursable services provided to DHS to ensure the Department properly pays these individuals. This system will allow DHS to maintain payment records and record monies owed.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the United States Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any Component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. §§ 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) or harm to the individual who relies upon the compromised information; and
3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To unions recognized as exclusive bargaining representatives under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7111 and 7114.
I. To the Merit Systems Protection Board, arbitrators, the Federal Labors Relations Authority, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other parties responsible for the administration of the Federal Labor-Management Program for the purpose of processing any corrective actions, or grievances, or conducting administrative hearings or appeals, or if needed in the performance of other authorized duties.
J. To federal agencies that provide financial management services for DHS Components under a cross-servicing agreement for purposes such as budgeting, purchasing, procurement, reimbursement, reporting, and collection functions.
K. To the Department of the Treasury to effect disbursement of authorized payments.
L. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
None.
DHS stores records in this system electronically in multiple databases or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records are stored on magnetic disc, tape, digital media, and CD-ROM.
DHS retrieves data by an individual's name, tax identification number/Social Security number, employee identification number, by individual's importer of record number, or other personal identifier.
DHS safeguards records in this system in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. DHS limits access to the computer system containing the records to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
DHS destroys records six years after final payment or cancellation, in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration General Records Schedule 1.1, item 010.
The Chief Financial Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, including DHS records hosted by another federal agency under a cross-servicing agreement for financial management services, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Headquarters or Component's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR. Part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and FOIA Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS Component agency may have responsive records;
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the Component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
Information originates with DHS, its Components and offices, and individuals submitting supporting documentation for reimbursement.
None.
Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Office.
Notice of Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to update and reissue a current Department of Homeland Security system of records titled “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-008 Accounts Receivable System of Records.” This system allows the Department of Homeland Security to collect and maintain payment records. As a result of a biennial review of this system, the Department of Homeland Security is updating this system of records notice to reflect an updated category of records, an additional system location, an updated routine use, and an updated retention schedule. Additionally, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice.
Submit comments on or before October 28, 2015. This updated system will be effective October 28, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2015-0062 by one of the following methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
• Fax: 202-343-4010.
• Mail: Karen L. Neuman, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
For general and privacy questions please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to update and reissue a current DHS system of records titled, “DHS/ALL-008 Accounts Receivable System of Records.” This system consists of both electronic and paper records that are used by DHS and its Components and offices to collect and maintain accounts receivable records. The collection and maintenance of accounts receivable information assists DHS in meeting its obligation to manage Departmental funds and ensures that the Department has an accurate accounting of all the money that it is owed. DHS is updating this SORN to provide notice that financial management activities for three DHS Components: Domestic and Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG), are transferring their financial management services to the Department of Interior's (DOI) Oracle Federal Financials (OFF) Virtual Environment. OFF is an application owned by DOI that provides federal agencies with a web-based application that contains customizable financial management modules. When combined, the modules provide a comprehensive financial software package that supports budgeting, purchasing, federal procurement, accounts payable, fixed assets, general ledger, inventory, accounts receivable, reimbursement, reporting, and collection functions. Although DOI will host DHS information, DHS will retain control over its data. Individuals should request DHS records resident on the DOI system through DHS and DHS will review and if approve (as appropriate) all requests.
DHS is updating the category of records to include general contact information, such as phone numbers, FAX numbers, and email addresses in recognition that DHS may contact vendors or employees via other methods than standard mail. DHS is updating the system location to provide notice that DHS information will be maintained at DOI. DHS is updating routine use L by dividing the previous routine use into two, with routine use L to provide information to unions recognized as exclusive bargaining representatives and new routine use M which permits sharing with the Merit Systems Protection Board, arbitrators, the Federal Labors Relations Authority, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). DHS is adding the EEOC to the previously issued routine
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/ALL-008 Accounts Receivable may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, and international government agencies, members of the public, and other entities consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
This updated system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors. Individuals may request access to their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of DHS by complying with DHS Privacy Act regulations, 6 CFR part 5.
The Privacy Act requires that each agency publish in the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this revised system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ALL-008.
DHS/ALL-008 Accounts Receivable Records.
Unclassified.
DHS maintains records at several Headquarters locations and in Component offices of DHS, in both Washington, DC and field locations. DHS also maintains records in the Department of Interior's (DOI) Oracle Federal Financials (OFF) Virtual Environment in Reston, VA and Denver, CO.
Any individual or organization that is indebted to DHS.
Categories of records in this system include:
• Individual's name;
• Tax identification number, which may be a Social Security number in certain instances;
• Addresses and other general contact information, such as phone numbers, FAX numbers, or email addresses;
• Waiver of Debt Letter of Appeal;
• Receipts;
• Notices of debts;
• Invoices;
• Record of payments, including refunds and overpayments;
• Number and amount of unpaid or overdue bills;
• Record of satisfaction of debt or referral for further action;
• Correspondence and documentation with debtors and creditors; and
• Electronic financial institution data.
5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 5701
The purpose of this system is to collect and maintain records of debts owed to DHS.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the United States Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any Component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) or harm to the individual who relies upon the compromised information; and
3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To a federal, state, or local agency so that the agency may adjudicate an individual's eligibility for a benefit.
I. To the Department of Justice or other federal agency for further collection action on any delinquent debt when circumstances warrant.
J. To a debt collection agency for the purposes of debt collection.
K. To approved federal, state, and local government agencies for any legally mandated purpose in accordance with their authorizing statute or law and where an approved Memorandum of Agreement or Computer Matching Agreement (CMA) is in place between DHS and the entity.
L. To provide information to unions recognized as exclusive bargaining representatives under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. 7111 and 7114.
M. To the Merit Systems Protection Board, arbitrators, the Federal Labors Relations Authority, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other parties responsible for the administration of the Federal Labor-Management Program for the purpose of processing any corrective actions, or grievances, or conducting administrative hearings or appeals, or if needed in the performance of other authorized duties.
N. To federal agencies who provide financial management services for DHS Components under a cross-servicing agreement for purposes such as budgeting, purchasing, procurement, reimbursement, reporting, and collection functions.
O. To the Government Accountability Accounting Office, Department of Justice, or a United States Attorney, copies of the Debt Collection Officer's file regarding the debt and actions taken to attempt to collect monies owed.
P. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Yes, DHS may disclose, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12), to consumer reporting agencies in accordance with the provision of 15 U.S.C. 1681,
Disclosure of records is limited to the individual's name, address, TIN/SSN, and other information necessary to establish the individual's identity; the amount, status, and history of the claim; and the agency or program under which the claim arose. The disclosure will be made only after the procedural requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) have been followed.
DHS stores records in this system electronically in multiple databases or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records are stored on magnetic disc, tape, digital media, and CD-ROM.
DHS retrieves data by an individual's name, tax identification number/Social Security number, employee identification number, or other personal identifier.
DHS safeguards records in this system in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. DHS limits access to the computer system containing the records to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
DHS destroys records six years after final payment or cancellation, in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration General Records Schedule 1.1, item 010.
The Chief Financial Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, including DHS records hosted by another federal agency under a cross-servicing agreement for financial management services, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Headquarters or Component's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy and FOIA Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which Component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS Component agency may have responsive records;
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the Component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
Information originates with DHS, its Components and offices, and individuals submitting supporting documentation for reimbursement.
None.
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
60-Day Notice and Request for Comments; Correction.
The Department of Homeland Security published a document in the
Dennis Malloy, 703-235-9388.
In the
Written comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to Department of Homeland Security (Attn: NPPD/PSCD/OBP) 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0612, Arlington, VA 20598-0612. Emailed requests should go to
•
•
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; or
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,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 28, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number 202-272-8377. (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.) Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
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 John Day- Snake and Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Councils (RAC) will meet as indicated below:
The John Day-Snake and Southeast Oregon RACs will hold a joint workshop Monday, October 26, 2015, at the Prineville District Bureau of Land Management office, 3050 NE. 3rd Street, Prineville, Oregon, followed by separate business meetings Tuesday, October 27, 2015. The Monday, Oct. 26, meeting will run from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The two RACs will meet separately Tuesday, October 26, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m., with the John Day-Snake RAC meeting at the Prineville District Bureau of Land Management office, and the Southeast Oregon RAC meeting at the Ochoco National Forest Office, 3160 NE. 3rd Street, Prineville, Oregon. A public comment period will be offered during both business meetings.
Lisa Clark, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Prineville District Office, 3050 NE. 3rd Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754, phone (541) 416-6864, or email
The John Day-Snake and Southeast Oregon RACs consist of 15 members each, chartered and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Their diverse perspectives are represented in commodity, conservation, and general interests. They provide advice to BLM and Forest Service resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in central and eastern Oregon.
Agenda items for the October 26 joint meeting include learning sessions on the 2015 fire season, Wild Horse and Burro management, a Greater Sage-grouse update, a discussion on RACs role in land designations, and community engagement. The John Day-Snake RAC will continue Oct. 27 with an update on the Lower Deschutes River, Hells Canyon and Snake River fee proposals, committee and member updates, an Oregon proposal for Wild Horse and Burro and any other matters that may reasonably come before the John Day-Snake RAC. The Southeast Oregon RAC will continue Oct. 27 with RAC officer elections, an Oregon proposal for Wild Horse and Burro, committee and member updates and any other matters that may reasonably come before the Southeast Oregon RAC. All meetings are open to the public. Information to be distributed to the John Day-Snake or Southeast Oregon RAC is requested prior to the start of each meeting. A public comment period will be offered on October 26, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. at both meeting locations. Unless
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
We, the Bureau of Reclamation, intend to submit a request for renewal (with revisions) of an existing approved information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) titled, Diversions, Return Flow, and Consumptive Use of Colorado River Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin, OMB Control Number 1006-0015.
Submit written comments on this revised information collection request on or before November 27, 2015.
Send written comments or requests for copies of the proposed revised forms to Mr. Paul Matuska, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder Canyon Operations Office, Water Accounting and Verification Group, LC-4200, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City, NV 89006, or via email to
Paul Matuska at 702-293-8164.
The Bureau of Reclamation delivers Colorado River water to water users for diversion and beneficial consumptive use in the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada. The Consolidated Decree of the United States Supreme Court in the case of
The Form LC-72, Record of Water Diverted From Lake Mead and/or the Colorado River for Use in the State of Nevada, is no longer needed because the water entitlement holder who used the form is no longer able to withdraw water from the Colorado River.
We invite your comments on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
(b) The accuracy of our estimated time and cost burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including increased use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
We will summarize all comments received regarding this notice. We will publish that summary in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
We, the Bureau of Reclamation, have forwarded the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval: Bureau of Reclamation Use Authorization Application (Form 7-2540), OMB Control Number: 1006-0003. The Information Collection Request describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost burden.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove this Information Collection Request, but may respond after 30 days; therefore, public comments must be received on or before October 28, 2015.
Send written comments to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, via facsimile to (202) 395-5806; or email to
Mr. Martin Bauer at (303) 445-2719. You may also view the Information Collection Request at
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is responsible for approximately 6.5 million acres of land which directly support Reclamation's Federal water projects in the 17 Western States. Under Title 43 CFR part 429, individuals or entities wanting to use Reclamation's lands, facilities, or waterbodies must apply using Form 7-2540. Examples of such uses are:
—Agricultural uses such as grazing and farming;
—commercial or organized recreation and sporting activities;
—other commercial activities such as “guiding and outfitting” and “filming and photography;” and
—resource exploration and extraction, including sand and gravel removal and timber harvesting.
Reclamation reviews applications to determine whether granting individual use authorizations is compatible with Reclamation's present or future uses of the lands, facilities, or waterbodies. When we find a proposed use compatible, we advise the applicant of the estimated administrative costs and estimated application processing time. In addition to the administrative costs, we require the applicant to pay a use fee based on a valuation or by competitive bidding. If the application is for construction of a bridge, building, or other significant construction project, Reclamation may require that all plans and specifications be signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer.
The required 60-day public comment period for the Bureau of Reclamation Use Authorization Application was initiated by a notice published in the
The only change made to the form was to improve the readability and information-gathering, and to update the Web site links.
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
(b) the accuracy of our burden estimate for the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
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. Reclamation will display a valid OMB control number on the form.
A
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a full review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on pressure sensitive plastic tape from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days.
Effective Date: September 22, 2015.
Carolyn Carlson (202-205-3002), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on August 26, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NAC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 2, 2000, NAC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 28, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on August 21, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Centurion Corporation Limited, Singapore, SINGAPORE; Eastern Asia Technology Limited, Singapore, SINGAPORE; ETV Interactive Limited, Stirling, UNITED KINGDOM; Guandong Coagent Electronics S&T Co., Ltd., Guandong, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Hyundai Media Co. Ltd., Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; JRC Co. Ltd., Kwangju-si, Kyoungki-Do, JAPAN; Kyoei Sangyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo, JAPAN; Moser Baer India Ltd., New Delhi, INDIA; Optical Experts Manufacturing, Inc., Charlotte, NC; Shenzhen Autone-Tronic Technology Co., Ltd., Baoan District, Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., Tokyo, JAPAN; and Yusan Industries, Ltd., Hong Kong, HONG KONG-CHINA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DVD CCA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 6, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on August 17, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: npm, Inc., Oakland, CA; StrongLoop, Inc., San Mateo, CA; YLD! Limited, London, UNITED KINGDOM; International Business Machines Corporation, Endicott, NY; DigitalOcean, New York, NY; Joyent, Inc., San Francisco, CA; Codefresh, Inc., Palo Alto, CA; Fidelity, Boston, MA; Sauce Labs, San Francisco, CA; Progress Software, Bedford, MA; Microsoft, Redmond, WA; PayPal, San Jose, CA; SAP SE., Walldorf, GERMANY; Famous Industries, Inc., San Francisco, CA; nearForm, Waterford, IRELAND; GoDaddy.com, LLC, Scottsdale, AZ; NodeSource, Inc., Anaheim, CA; Intel, Santa Clara, CA; Groupon, Inc., Chicago, IL; and Apigee Corporation, San Jose, CA. The general area of Node.js Foundation's planned activity is to: (a) Enable widespread adoption and help accelerate development of open source, scalable network application technologies that run across distributed devices (the “Platform”); (b) promote the Platform worldwide; and (c) undertake such other activities as may from time to time be appropriate to further the purposes and achieve the goals set forth above. In support of such Purpose, Node.js Foundation may engage in some or all of the following activities: (a) Drive the development of, disseminate, support and maintain the
Notice is hereby given that, on August 3, 2015 pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Plexxi Inc., Cambridge, MA; and Guavus, San Mateo, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
In addition, Versa Networks, Santa Clara, CA, was incorrectly reported as a dropped member on November 6, 2013. The member never dropped from this venture and remains a member with full membership benefits with no lapse since joining this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OpenDaylight intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 23, 2013, OpenDaylight filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 25, 2015. A notice was published in the
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data consistent with 20 CFR 601, including Form MA 8-7, which expires May 31, 2016.
Submit written comments to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before November 27, 2015.
Send written comments to Robert Johnston, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Room S-4524, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202-693-3005 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Email:
Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration regulations, 20 CFR 601, Administrative Procedures, contains collection of information requirements at sections 601.2 and 601.3. Section 601.2 requires states to submit copies of their unemployment compensation laws for approval by the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) so that the Secretary may determine the status of state laws and plans of operation. Section 601.3 requires states to “submit all relevant state materials such as statutes, executive and administrative orders, legal opinions, rules, regulations, interpretations, court decisions, etc.” These materials are used by the Secretary to determine whether the state law contains provisions required by section 3304(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Grants of funds are made to states for the administration of their employment security laws if their unemployment compensation laws and their plans of operation for public employment offices meet required conditions of Federal laws. The information transmitted by Form MA 8-7 is used by the Secretary to make findings (as specified in the above cited Federal laws) required for certification to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to states or for certification of the state law for purposes of additional tax credit. If this information is not available, the Secretary cannot make such certifications. To facilitate transmittal of required material, the Department prescribes the use of Form MA 8-7, Transmittal for Unemployment Insurance Materials. This simple check off form is used by the states to identify material being transmitted to the National Office and allows the material to be routed to appropriate staff for prompt action.
The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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,
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. The PRA helps ensure that respondents can provide data in the desired format with minimal reporting burden (time and financial resources), collection instruments are clearly understood and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data on the ETA 218, Benefit Rights and Experience Report, which expires May 31, 2016.
Submit written comments to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before November 27, 2015.
Send written comments to Tom Stengle, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Room S-4524, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202-693-2991 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Email:
Attachment to the labor force, usually measured as amount of past wages earned, is used to determine eligibility for state unemployment compensation programs. The data in the ETA 218, Benefit Rights and Experience Report, includes numbers of individuals who were and were not monetarily eligible, those eligible for the maximum benefits, those eligible based on classification by potential duration categories, and those exhausting their full entitlement as classified by actual duration categories. These data are used by the National Office in solvency studies, cost estimating and modeling, and assessment of state benefit formulas.
The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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,
We will summarize and/or include in the request for OMB approval of the ICR, the comments received in response to this comment request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data on the ETA 9048, Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Activity, and the ETA 9049, Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Outcomes, which expires May 31, 2016.
Submit written comments to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before November 27, 2015.
Send written comments to Diane Wood, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Room S-4524, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202-693-3212 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Email:
The Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services (WPRS) program allows for the targeting of reemployment services to those most in need of services. The ETA 9048 and ETA 9049 are the only means of tracking the activities in the WPRS program. The ETA 9048 report describes flows of claimants at various points in the WPRS system from initial profiling through the completion of specific reemployment services. The ETA 9049 describes the reemployment experience of profiled claimants who were referred to services by examining the state's existing wage record files to see in which quarter the individuals who received reemployment services became employed, what wages they earned, and whether they changed industries.
The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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,
We will summarize and/or include in the request for OMB approval of the ICR, the comments received in response to this comment request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Final order.
The Copyright Royalty Judges (“CRJs”), acting pursuant to statute, referred novel material questions of substantive law to the Register of Copyrights for resolution. Those questions concerned the manner and extent to which section 114(f)(5)(C) of the Copyright Act bars the CRJs from admitting into evidence or otherwise considering the provisions contained in settlement agreements reached pursuant to the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009. The Register resolved those questions in a written decision that was transmitted to the CRJs. That decision is reproduced below.
Stephen Ruwe, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8350.
The Copyright Royalty Judges are tasked with determining and adjusting rates and terms of royalty payments for statutory licenses under the Copyright Act.
On August 19, 2015, the CRJs, acting pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(B), referred novel material questions of substantive law to the Register concerning the manner and extent to which section 114(f)(5)(C) of the Copyright Act bars the CRJs from admitting into evidence or otherwise considering the provisions contained in settlement agreements reached pursuant to the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009. On September 18, 2015, the Register resolved those questions in a Memorandum Opinion that she transmitted to the CRJs. To provide the public with notice of the decision rendered by the Register, the Memorandum Opinion is reproduced in its entirety below.
In the Matter of: DETERMINATION OF ROYALTY RATES AND TERMS FOR EPHEMERAL RECORDING AND WEBCASTING DIGITAL PERFORMANCE OF SOUND RECORDINGS (Web IV)
Section 114(f)(5)(C) of the Copyright Act bars the Copyright Royalty Judges (“CRJs” or “Judges”) from taking into consideration in ratesetting proceedings the provisions of agreements entered into under the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009, which allowed the parties to negotiate alternative rates and terms from those established by the CRJs. Questions have arisen in the pending proceeding to set royalty rates and terms for webcasters' digital performance of sound recordings and associated ephemeral reproductions about the proper interpretation of this provision. The CRJs determined that these were novel material questions of substantive law and, as required under section 802(f)(1)(B) of the Copyright Act, referred them to the Register of Copyrights for resolution. The Register's determination follows.
The instant proceeding will establish royalty rates and terms for webcasters' digital performance of sound recordings and the making of ephemeral recordings under the statutory licenses set forth in sections 112(e) and 114(f)(2) of the Copyright Act for the period beginning January 1, 2016 and ending on December 31, 2020. Such rates and terms are to be set under the “willing buyer/willing seller standard,” meaning that the rates and terms should be those “that most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller.”
The rates and terms established in the current proceeding will replace existing royalty rates and terms applicable to webcasters that were agreed to and implemented under the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009 (“2009 WSA”).
The 2002 SWSA was enacted to address a group of small webcasters' professed inability to pay the fees established by the Librarian of Congress (“Librarian”) under the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel system, the predecessor to the current CRJ process.
The 2002 and subsequent WSAs have been codified in section 114 of the Copyright Act.
(C) Neither subparagraph (A) [allowing the parties to enter into alternative agreements] nor any provisions of any agreement entered into pursuant to subparagraph (A), including any rate structure, fees, terms, conditions, or notice and recordkeeping requirements set forth therein, shall be admissible as evidence or otherwise taken into account in any administrative, judicial, or other government proceeding involving the setting or adjustment of the royalties payable for the public performance or reproduction in ephemeral phonorecords or copies of sound recordings, the determination of terms or conditions related thereto, or the establishment of notice or recordkeeping requirements by the Copyright Royalty Judges under paragraph (4) or section 112(e)(4). It is the intent of Congress that any royalty rates, rate structure, definitions, terms, conditions, or notice and recordkeeping requirements, included in such agreements shall be considered as a compromise motivated by the unique business, economic and political circumstances of webcasters, copyright owners, and performers rather than as matters that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller, or otherwise meet the objectives set forth in section 801(b).
As permitted under the 2009 WSA, SoundExchange entered into settlement agreements (each, a “WSA agreement”) with various webcasters to replace the rates set by the CRJs.
According to SoundExchange, direct agreements sought to be introduced by the webcasting parties in the instant ratesetting proceeding incorporate substantive provisions and/or are otherwise influenced by the Pureplay Agreement entered into under the 2009 WSA.
In response to these concerns, the CRJs issued an order inviting briefing from the participants regarding five novel material questions of substantive law and, on July 29, 2015, referred the following questions to the Register pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(B):
1. Does section 114(f)(5)(C) of the [Copyright] Act bar the Judges from considering
2. Does section 114(f)(5)(C) of the [Copyright] Act bar the Judges from considering
3. Does section 114(f)(5)(C) of the [Copyright] Act bar the Judges from considering
4. Does section 114(f)(5)(C) of the [Copyright] Act bar the Judges from considering
5. If the answer to any of the previous questions is “no,” does section 114(f)(5)(C) of the [Copyright] Act bar the Judges from considering
All parties agree that section 114(f)(5)(C) bars the CRJs from admitting into evidence or otherwise considering provisions of the actual settlement agreements reached pursuant to the 2009 WSA.
SoundExchange argues that each of the referred questions should be answered in the affirmative, and that the direct license agreements should be excluded from consideration. On the other side of the issue, the webcasting parties, namely Pandora, iHeartMedia, and the National Association of Broadcasters and National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee (together, the “Broadcasters,” and all of the licensee parties collectively, the “Webcasters”), assert that the questions should be answered in the negative, and that the CRJs should be able to take these agreements into consideration as benchmarks or corroborative evidence in the current proceeding.
SoundExchange reads the statutory bar broadly, arguing that if a direct license agreement incorporates any terms of, is based upon, or is influenced by, the provisions of a WSA agreement, then the CRJs should refrain from considering that agreement pursuant to section 114(f)(5)(C).
First, SoundExchange claims that section 114(f)(5)(C)'s inclusion of the phrase “otherwise taken into account” demonstrates that the statute's scope is broader than a mere bar against the admission of evidence.
Second, SoundExchange argues that Congress enacted a “very broad rule of exclusion” to prevent the terms of a WSA agreement from being used against a settling party in subsequent proceedings, including in cases where these terms appear in subsequently negotiated agreements.
Third, SoundExchange argues that any contrary interpretation of the statute would be fundamentally unfair because it would permit a party to introduce a licensing agreement that was directly influenced by a WSA agreement, while preventing an opposing party from introducing the WSA agreement itself to show the extent of its influence and to demonstrate why the license agreement should not be given weight as evidence of a market rate.
Regarding each of the referred questions specifically, SoundExchange asserts that section 114(f)(5)(C) bars the CRJs from considering terms copied verbatim from a direct license agreement because “[w]here a license agreement is simply a verbatim copy of a WSA settlement agreement, considering the terms of the license agreement is effectively considering all the terms of the WSA agreement from which these terms were copied.”
SoundExchange next argues that if a direct agreement's terms are substantively identical to the terms of a WSA agreement, the entire agreement should be barred for the same reasons as direct agreements with terms copied verbatim from a WSA agreement; “[o]therwise the party seeking to submit the license agreement could simply slightly re-word the relevant terms.”
Sound Exchange contends that if the terms of a license agreement have been directly influenced by the terms of a WSA agreement, then the entire license agreement should be barred because its consideration “would take `into account' the terms of the WSA agreement, in violation of” the statute.
SoundExchange next argues that a direct agreement should be barred in its entirety if it refers to a WSA agreement, including to provisions unrelated to rate structure, fees, terms, conditions, or notice and recordkeeping requirements, because “a reference to a WSA agreement in any provision of a license is a reference to a WSA agreement's `terms' and `conditions' [because] [t]here are no provisions of a license that are `unrelated' to its `terms' and `conditions.'”
SoundExchange vigorously disputes the Webcasters' interpretation of section 114(f)(5)(C), suggesting that under their view, a party could skirt the statutory prohibition by using its option to join a WSA agreement “as leverage” to negotiate and enter into a slightly modified agreement, thereafter presenting this modified agreement to the CRJs as “competent marketplace evidence.”
The various Webcasters' arguments largely parallel one another. Each of the Webcasters asserts that section 114(f)(5)(C) applies only to the specific settlement agreements entered into with SoundExchange pursuant to the 2009 WSA, and not to any subsequent direct license agreements between a webcasting service and a sound recording owner.
Looking to the text of the statute, the Webcasters urge that, in contrast to the WSA agreements, the direct agreements were not entered into with SoundExchange as contemplated by the statute.
The Webcasters reject SoundExchange's interpretation of the phrase “taken into account” as precluding the consideration of direct license agreements that may contain terms identical to or influenced by a WSA agreement. They argue that SoundExchange's interpretation would require disregarding every benchmark agreement proposed by the parties, as all license agreements are to some degree impacted by the prevailing rates and terms set under the statute.
The Broadcasters add that if the preclusion in subparagraph (C) is applied to direct agreements, “it would force the [CRJs] to engage in arbitrary line-drawing and second-guessing regarding parties' intent in entering into license agreements in a manner nowhere contemplated or discussed in the statutory prohibition.”
Concerning the statute's legislative history, Pandora argues that Congress passed the WSA in order to encourage SoundExchange to negotiate “less onerous rates” than those announced by the CRJs, and that the bar on subsequent CRJ consideration of the WSA agreements was imposed specifically so that SoundExchange “would not be construed as a `willing seller'” in relation to those rates in future CRB proceedings.
The Webcasters also argue that SoundExchange's interpretation conflicts with section 114(f)(2)(B), which provides that the CRJs may consider voluntary license agreements to further the objective of establishing rates and terms that most clearly represent those that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
Pandora additionally asserts that SoundExchange's position that the statutory licenses and the WSA agreements cast a “shadow” upon the direct license agreements “conflates
Finally, the Broadcasters assert that the Register is not authorized to render an opinion on the referred questions, because section 802(f)(1)(B) only allows for the referral of “a novel material question of substantive law,” and the admissibility of evidence is, in the Broadcasters' view, a purely procedural question.
Having considered the relevant statutory language and the input from the parties, the Register determines that it is appropriate to opine on the referred questions, and that the answer to each of the referred questions is “no.” The Register finds that section 114(f)(5)(C) prohibits consideration of the provisions of the WSA agreements by the CRJs but does not bar the CRJs from considering directly negotiated license agreements that incorporate or otherwise reflect provisions in a WSA agreement. The Register further concludes, however, that the statutory bar does not preclude SoundExchange from introducing evidence or argument concerning the existence of the WSA agreements themselves, including their general influence or impact on the negotiation of the direct agreements, provided that individual provisions of the WSA are not introduced in the proceeding.
Under 17 U.S.C. § 802(f)(1)(B), the CRJs are required to refer to the Register “novel material question[s] of substantive law.”
The Register finds the questions to be substantive rather than procedural, and that they were therefore properly referred by the CRJs. The referred questions require the Register to interpret the scope of section 114(f)(5)(C)'s prohibition, including what it means to take various types of agreements and their provisions “into account” for purposes of the ratesetting proceeding.
As noted above, the Register concludes that section 114(f)(5)(C) prohibits consideration of provisions of settlement agreements entered into pursuant to the 2009 WSA and does not bar the CRJs from considering direct license agreements containing provisions that are copied from, are substantively identical to, have been influenced by, or refer to, the provisions of a WSA agreement. This result is compelled not only by the language of section 114(f)(5)(C), but by the legislative intent behind that statute as well.
A reading of the entirety of section 114(f)(5) makes clear that the material excluded under subparagraph (C) is limited to the provisions of actual settlement agreements entered into pursuant to the WSA. Subparagraph (C) bars consideration of “subparagraph (A)” and “any provisions of any agreement entered into pursuant to subparagraph (A).”
Accordingly, the “provisions of . . . agreement[s]” barred under section 114(f)(5)(C) must be contained within agreements: (i) between SoundExchange and webcasters; (ii) that are binding on all copyright owners; (iii) that are published in the
Additionally, section 114(f)(5)(C) includes an explicit statement of Congress's intent concerning the evidentiary bar:
It is the intent of Congress that any royalty rates, rate structure, definitions, terms, conditions, or notice and recordkeeping requirements,
The reference to “such agreements” subparagraph (C) clearly refers to the WSA agreements Congress was authorizing under subparagraph (A). The provisions that are barred from consideration are thus those “included” in WSA agreements—not other agreements.
This interpretation is confirmed by relevant legislative history as well. When Congress enacted the 2002 SWSA, which first contained this statutory language, it explained that it intended to make “clear that
The Register further observes that section 114(f)(5)(C) is addressed to individual provisions contained in the WSA agreements, rather than the agreements as a whole. Section 114(f)(5)(C) provides that no “provisions of any agreement entered into pursuant to subparagraph (A), including any rate structure, fees, terms, conditions, or notice and recordkeeping requirements set forth therein,” shall be taken into consideration.
Section 114(f)(5)(C) also provides that “subparagraph (A)” itself shall not be admissible as evidence or otherwise taken into account.
Contrary to SoundExchange's assertions, the phrase “taken into account” in section 114(f)(5)(C) does not alter the Register's reading of the statutory language. SoundExchange's interpretation—that consideration of the terms of a direct license agreement that have been copied from or directly influenced by the terms of a WSA agreement would impermissibly “take into account” the terms of the WSA agreement—is overreaching. The Register agrees with the Webcasters that such a reading could effectively exclude all potentially probative benchmark agreements from consideration because virtually every voluntary agreement could be said to be is influenced to some extent by the background statutory scheme—which includes the WSA agreements.
The far more plausible reading of the “otherwise take into account” language, which the Register determines is what Congress intended, is simply that the CRJs are not only barred from admitting WSA agreement terms into evidence, but that they also cannot consider the provisions of WSA agreements even if not offered as evidence. For example, the broader “taken into account” language would prohibit the CRJs from taking notice of provisions of the WSA agreements that have been published in the
To interpret section 114(f)(5)(C) as preventing the CRJs from taking direct license agreements into consideration would seemingly undermine Congress' directive in section 114(f)(2)(B), which encourages the CRJs to “consider the rates and terms for comparable types of digital audio transmission services and comparable circumstances under voluntary license agreements.”
Finally, the Register agrees with the Webcasters that as a practical matter, it could be very difficult to draw lines between negotiated agreements that were “directly influenced” by WSA agreements and those that were not. SoundExchange's suggested rule would require the CRJs to sort admissible from inadmissible agreements based on amorphous criteria, which would be a challenging task to say the least.
Although the Register finds that the CRJs may take into consideration direct
As discussed above, in rate determinations, the CRJs are tasked with replicating a “hypothetical market” where “the webcasting statutory license [does] not exist.”
Section 114(f)(5)(C) bars the CRJs from considering the terms of agreements negotiated under the 2009 WSA. Nowhere does the statute suggest that the mere existence of such agreements, or their general effect on the marketplace or particular negotiations, may not be considered. As noted above, the statutory language is specific in limiting the scope of the prohibition to the “
A recent case from federal district court in the Southern District of New York speaks to this issue.
License fees payable for the public performance of sound recordings under section 106(6) shall not be taken into account in any administrative, judicial, or other governmental proceeding to set or adjust the royalties payable to copyright owners of musical works for the public performance of their works.
During the course of the federal court proceeding, the licensing organization, ASCAP, the licensor, proposed a variety of benchmarks for the court to consider, including a series of licensing agreements negotiated directly between copyright owners and licensees outside of the consent decree process.
I don't understand that that testimony about motive in negotiations and turmoil within ASCAP over these different rates [for sound recordings] would be inadmissible pursuant to Section 114. Indeed, I think it would be difficult to deal with the facts on the ground as they exist and to set a rate that is reasonable in the context of the facts . . . without knowing about that.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
This report to Congress is provided in accordance with Section 608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b) (the “Act”).
In accordance with section 608(b)(2) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (the “Act”, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)(1)), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is submitting the following report. This report identifies the criteria and methodology that the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) intends to use to determine which candidate countries may be eligible to be considered for assistance under the Act for FY 2016.
Under section 608 (c)(1) of the Act, MCC will, for a thirty-day period following publication, accept and consider public comment for purposes of determining eligible countries under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706).
This document explains how the Board of Directors (Board) of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) will identify, evaluate, and determine eligibility of countries for Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) assistance for fiscal year (FY) 2016. The statutory basis for this report is set forth in Appendix A. Specifically, this document discusses:
As discussed in the August 2015 Report on Countries that are Candidates for Millennium Challenge Account Eligibility for Fiscal Year 2016 and Countries that Would be Candidates but for Legal Prohibitions (the “Candidate Country Report”), MCC evaluates all low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle income countries (LMICs) countries as follows:
• For scorecard evaluation purposes for FY 2016, MCC defines LICs as those countries between $0 and $1985 GNI per capita, and LMICs as those countries between $1986 and $4125 GNI per capita.
• For funding purposes for FY 2016, MCC defines the poorest 75 countries as LICs, and the remaining countries up to the upper-middle income (UMIC) threshold of $4125 as LMICs.
Under Appendix B, lists of all LICS, LMICS and statutorily prohibited countries for evaluation purposes are provided. The list using the “funding” definition was outlined in the FY 2016 Candidate Country Report and describes how funding categories work.
The Board looks at three legislatively-mandated factors in its evaluation of any candidate country for compact eligibility: (1) Policy performance; (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth; and (3) the availability of MCC funds.
Because of the importance of needing to evaluate a country's policy performance—and needing to do so in a comparable, cross-country way—the Board relies to the maximum extent possible upon the best-available objective and quantifiable indicators of policy performance. These indicators act as proxies of the country's commitment to good governance, as laid out in MCC's founding legislation. Comprised of 20 third-party indicators in the categories of “encouraging economic freedom,” “investing in people,” and “ruling justly,” MCC “scorecards” are created for all LICs and LMICs. To “pass” the indicators on the scorecard, the country must perform above the median among its income group (as defined above), except in the cases of inflation, political rights, civil liberties, and immunization rates (LMICs only), where threshold scores have been established. In particular, the Board considers whether the country:
• Passed at least 10 of the 20 indicators, with at least one in each category,
• Passed the “Control of Corruption” indicator, and
• Passed either the “Political Rights” or “Civil Liberties” indicator.
While satisfaction of all three aspects means a country is termed to have “passed” the scorecard, the Board also considers whether the country performed “substantially worse” in any one policy category than it does on the scorecard overall. Appendix C describes all 20 indicators, their definitions, what is required to “pass,” their source, and their relationship to the legislative criteria.
The 20 policy performance indicators are the predominant basis for determining which countries will be eligible for MCC assistance, and the Board expects a country to be passing its scorecard at the point the Board decides to select the country for either a first or second/subsequent compact. However, the Board also recognizes that even the best-available data has inherent challenges. For example, data gaps, real-time events versus data lags, the absence of narratives and nuanced detail, and other similar weaknesses affect each of these indicators. In such instances, the Board uses its judgment to interpret policy performance as measured by the scorecards. The Board may also consult other sources of information to further enhance its understanding of a given country's policy performance beyond the issues on the scorecard, which is especially useful given the unique perspective of each Board member (
The Board also consults other sources of qualitative and quantitative information to have a more detailed view of the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in a country.
While the Board considers a range of other information sources depending on the country, specific areas of attention typically include better understanding the issues on, trends in, and trajectory of:
• The control of corruption and rule of law;
• The state of democratic and human rights (especially of vulnerable groups
• The perspective of civil society on salient governance issues;
• The potential for the private sector (both local and foreign) to lead investment and growth;
• The levels of poverty within a country; and
• The country's institutional capacity.
Where applicable, the Board also considers MCC's own experience and ability to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in a given country—such as considering MCC's core skills versus the country's needs, capacity within MCC to work with a country, and the likelihood that MCC is seen by the country as a credible partner.
This information provides greater clarity on the likelihood that MCC investments will have an appreciable impact on reducing poverty and generating economic growth in a given country. The Board has used such information both to not select countries that are otherwise passing their scorecards, as well as to better understand when a country's performance on a particular indicator may not be up to date or is about to change. More details on this subject (sometimes referred to as “supplemental information”) can be found on MCC's Web site at
The final factor that the Board must consider when evaluating countries is
The following sub-sections describe how each of these three legislatively-mandated factors are applied with regard to the selection situations the Board encounters each December: Selection of countries for first compact eligibility, selection of countries for second/subsequent compact eligibility, and selection of countries for the threshold program. Thereafter, a note is included on consideration of countries for potential regional investments.
When selecting countries for compact eligibility, the Board looks at all three legislatively-mandated aspects described in the previous section: (1) Policy performance, first and foremost as measured by the scorecards and bolstered through additional information (as described in the previous section); (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, examined through the use of other supporting information (as described in the previous section); and (3) the funding available.
At a minimum, the Board looks to see that the country passes its scorecard. It also examines supporting evidence that the country's commitment to good governance is on a sound footing and performance is on a positive trajectory, and that MCC has funding to support a meaningful compact with that country. Where applicable, previous threshold program information is also considered. The Board then weighs the information described above across each of the three dimensions.
The approach described above is then applied in any additional years of selection of a country to continue to develop a first compact, with the added benefit of having cumulative scorecards, cumulative records of policy performance, and other accumulated supporting information to determine the overall pattern of performance over the emerging multi-year trajectory.
Section 609(k) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, specifically authorizes MCC to enter into “one or more subsequent Compacts.” MCC does not consider subsequent compact eligibility, however, before countries have completed their compact, or are within 18 months of completion, (
Selection for subsequent compacts is not automatic and is intended only for countries that (1) exhibit successful performance on their previous compact; (2) exhibit improved scorecard policy performance during the partnership; and (3) exhibit a continued commitment to further their sector reform efforts in any subsequent partnership. As a result, the Board has an even higher standard when selecting countries for subsequent compacts.
To evaluate the degree of success of the previous compact, the Board looks to see if there is a clear evidence base of success within the budget and time limits of the compact, in particular by looking at three aspects:
• The degree to which there is evidence of strong political will and management capacity: Is the partnership characterized by the country ensuring that both policy reforms and the compact program itself are being implemented to the best ability that the country can deliver;
• The degree to which the country has exhibited commitment and capacity to achieve program results: Are the financial and project results being achieved; to what degree is the country committing its own resources to ensure the compact is a success; to what extent is the private sector engaged (if relevant); and other compact-specific issues; and
• The degree to which the country has implemented the compact in accordance with MCC's core policies and standards: That is, is the country adhering to MCC's policies and procedures, including in critical areas such as remediating unresolved fraud and corruption and abuse or misuse of funds issues; procurement; and monitoring and evaluation.
Details on the specific types of information examined (and sources used) in each of the three areas are provided in Appendix D. Overall, the Board is looking for evidence that the previous compact will be completed or has been completed successfully, on time and on budget, and that there is a commitment to continued, robust reform going forward.
Beyond successful implementation of the previous compact, the Board expects the country to have improved its overall scorecard policy performance during the partnership, and to pass the scorecard in the year of selection for the subsequent compact. The Board focuses on:
• The overall scorecard pass/fail rate over time, what this suggests about underlying policy performance, as well as an examination of the underlying reasons;
• The progress over time on policy areas measured by both hard-hurdle indicators—Control of Corruption, and Democratic Rights—including an examination of the underlying reasons; and
• Other indicator trajectories as deemed relevant by the Board.
In all cases, while the Board expects the country to be passing its scorecard, other sources of information are examined to understand the nuance and reasons behind scorecard or indicator performance over time, including any real-time updates, methodological changes within the indicators themselves, shifts in the relevant candidate pool, or alternative policy performance perspectives (such as gleaned through consultations with civil society and related stakeholders). Other sources of information are also consulted to look at policy performance over time in areas not covered by the scorecard, but that are deemed important by the Board (such as trade, foreign policy concerns, etc.).
The Board expects that subsequent compacts will endeavor to tackle deeper policy reforms necessary to unlock an identified constraint to growth. Consequently, the Board considers its own experience during the previous compact in considering how committed the country is to reducing poverty and increasing economic growth, and therefore tries to gauge the country's commitment for further sector reform should it be selected for a subsequent compact. This includes:
• Assessing the country's delivery of policy reform during the previous compact (as described above);
• Assessing expectations of the country's ability and willingness to
• Examining both other sources of information that describe the nature of the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate growth (as outlined in A.2 above), and the relative success of the previous compact overall, as already discussed; and
• Finally, considering how well funding can be leveraged for impact, given its experience in the previous compact.
Through this overall approach to subsequent compact selection, the Board applies the three legislatively mandated evaluation criteria (policy performance, the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, and the funding available) in a way that rests critically on deeply assessing the previous partnership: From a compact success standpoint, a commitment to improved scorecard policy performance standpoint, and a commitment to continued sector policy reform standpoint. The Board then weighs all of the information described above in making its decision.
The approach described above is then applied in any additional years of selection necessary as the country continues to develop the subsequent compact, with the added benefit of having even further detail on previous compact implementation, cumulative scorecards, records of policy performance, and other accumulated supporting information to determine the overall pattern of performance over the resulting multi-year trajectory.
The Board may also select countries to participate in the Threshold Program. The Threshold Program provides assistance to candidate countries that exhibit a significant commitment to meeting the eligibility criteria described in the previous sub-sections, but fail to meet such requirements. Specifically, in examining the policy performance, the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, and the funding available, the Board will consider whether a country potentially eligible for threshold program assistance appears to be on a trajectory to becoming a viable contender for compact eligibility in the medium term.
FY 2016 marks the first year that the Board may consider selecting countries where potential regional investments (
With respect to regional investments, the fundamental criteria and process for selection will remain unchanged: Countries will continue to be evaluated and selected individually, as described in sections A, B, and C above. However, for countries where regional investments might be contemplated, the Board will also examine additional supplemental information looking at the policy environment from a regional dimension.
Specifically, the Board will examine additional data and information related to:
• The current state of the country's political and economic integration with its region and neighbors;
• Impediments to further integration with its region and neighbors; and
• The potential gains from investing at a regional level, including illustrative potential sector opportunities.
The Board will weigh this additional regional information in tandem with the other supplemental factors described earlier in sections A, B, and C. The Board will then decide whether or not it will direct MCC to explore some form of a regional investment with the country.
This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section 608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b) (the Act).
Section 605 of the Act authorizes the provision of assistance to countries that enter into a Millennium Challenge Compact with the United States to support policies and programs that advance the progress of such countries in achieving lasting economic growth and poverty reduction. The Act requires MCC to take a number of steps in selecting countries for compact assistance for FY 2016 based on the countries' demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investing in their people, MCC's opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country, and the availability of funds. These steps include the submission of reports to the congressional committees specified in the Act and publication of information in the
1. The countries that are “candidate countries” for MCA assistance for FY 2016 based on per capita income levels and eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law. (section 608(a) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(a));
2. The criteria and methodology that MCC's Board of Directors (Board) will use to measure and evaluate policy performance of the candidate countries consistent with the requirements of section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) in order to determine “eligible countries” from among the “candidate countries” (section 608(b) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)); and
3. The list of countries determined by the Board to be “eligible countries” for FY 2016, with justification for eligibility determination and selection for compact negotiation, including those eligible countries with which MCC will seek to enter into compacts (section 608(d) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(d)).
This report reflects the satisfaction of item #2 above.
Since MCC was created, it has relied on the World Bank's gross national income (GNI) per capita income data
MCC will continue to use the traditional income categories for eligibility to categorize countries in two groups for purposes of FY 2016 scorecard comparisons:
• LICs are countries with GNI per capita below IDA's historical ceiling for eligibility ($1,985 for FY 2016); and
• LMICs are countries with GNI per capita above IDA's historical ceiling for eligibility but below the World Bank's upper middle income country threshold ($1,986—$4,125 for FY 2016).
The list of countries categorized as LICs and LMICs for the purpose of FY 2016 scorecard assessments can be found below.
• The poorest 75 countries are now considered LICs for the purposes of MCC funding. They are not limited by the 25 percent funding cap on LMICs.
• Countries with a GNI per capita above the poorest 75 but below the World Bank's upper middle income country threshold ($4,125 for FY 2015) are considered LMICs for the purposes of MCC funding. By law, no more than 25 percent of all compact funds for a given fiscal year can be provided to these countries.
The FY 2016 Candidate Country Report lists LICs and LMICs based on this new definition and outlines which countries are subject to the 25 percent funding cap.
The following indicators will be used to measure candidate countries' demonstrated commitment to the criteria found in section 607(b) of the Act. The indicators are intended to assess the degree to which the political and economic conditions in a country serve to promote broad-based sustainable economic growth and reduction of poverty and thus provide a sound environment for the use of MCA funds. The indicators are not goals in themselves; rather, they are proxy measures of policies that are linked to broad-based sustainable economic growth. The indicators were selected based on (i) their relationship to economic growth and poverty reduction; (ii) the number of countries they cover; (iii) transparency and availability; and (iv) relative soundness and objectivity. Where possible, the indicators are developed by independent sources.
1. Political Rights: Independent experts rate countries on the prevalence of free and fair elections of officials with real power; the ability of citizens to form political parties that may compete fairly in elections; freedom from domination by the military, foreign powers, totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies and economic oligarchies; and the political rights of minority groups, among other things. Pass: Score must be above the minimum score of 17 out of 40. Source: Freedom House
2. Civil Liberties: Independent experts rate countries on freedom of expression; association and organizational rights; rule of law and human rights; and personal autonomy and economic rights, among other things. Pass: Score must be above the minimum score of 25 out of 60. Source: Freedom House
3. Freedom of Information: Measures the legal and practical steps taken by a government to enable or allow information to move freely through society; this includes measures of press freedom, national freedom of information laws, and the extent to which a county is filtering internet content or tools. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: Freedom House/Centre for Law and Democracy/Access Info Europe
4. Government Effectiveness: An index of surveys and expert assessments that rate countries on the quality of public service provision; civil servants' competency and independence from political pressures; and the government's ability to plan and implement sound policies, among other things. Pass: Score must be above the
5. Rule of Law: An index of surveys and expert assessments that rate countries on the extent to which the public has confidence in and abides by the rules of society; the incidence and impact of violent and nonviolent crime; the effectiveness, independence, and predictability of the judiciary; the protection of property rights; and the enforceability of contracts, among other things. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings)
6. Control of Corruption: An index of surveys and expert assessments that rate countries on: “grand corruption” in the political arena; the frequency of petty corruption; the effects of corruption on the business environment; and the tendency of elites to engage in “state capture,” among other things. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings)
1. Fiscal Policy: The overall budget balance divided by gross domestic product (GDP), averaged over a three-year period. The data for this measure comes primarily from IMF country reports or, where public IMF data are outdated or unavailable, are provided directly by the recipient government with input from U.S. missions in host countries. All data are cross-checked with the IMF's World Economic Outlook database to try to ensure consistency across countries and made publicly available. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: International Monetary Fund Country Reports, National Governments, and the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Database
2. Inflation: The most recent average annual change in consumer prices. Pass: Score must be 15 percent or less. Source: The International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Database
3. Regulatory Quality: An index of surveys and expert assessments that rate countries on the burden of regulations on business; price controls; the government's role in the economy; and foreign investment regulation, among other areas. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings)
4. Trade Policy: A measure of a country's openness to international trade based on weighted average tariff rates and non-tariff barriers to trade. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: The Heritage Foundation
5. Gender in the Economy: An index that measures the extent to which laws provide men and women equal capacity to generate income or participate in the economy, including the capacity to access institutions, get a job, register a business, sign a contract, open a bank account, choose where to live, and to travel freely. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: International Finance Corporation
6. Land Rights and Access: An index that rates countries on the extent to which the institutional, legal, and market framework provide secure land tenure and equitable access to land in rural areas and the time and cost of property registration in urban and peri-urban areas. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: The International Fund for Agricultural Development and the International Finance Corporation
7. Access to Credit: An index that rates countries on rules and practices affecting the coverage, scope, and accessibility of credit information available through either a public credit registry or a private credit bureau; as well as legal rights in collateral laws and bankruptcy laws. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: International Finance Corporation
8. Business Start-Up: An index that rates countries on the time and cost of complying with all procedures officially required for an entrepreneur to start up and formally operate an industrial or commercial business. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: International Finance Corporation
1. Public Expenditure on Health: Total expenditures on health by government at all levels divided by GDP. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: The World Health Organization
2. Total Public Expenditure on Primary Education: Total expenditures on primary education by government at all levels divided by GDP. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and National Governments
3. Natural Resource Protection: Assesses whether countries are protecting up to 17 percent of all their biomes (
4. Immunization Rates: The average of DPT3 and measles immunization coverage rates for the most recent year available. Pass: Score must be above the median score for LICs, and 90 percent or higher for LMICs. Source: The World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund
5. Girls Education:
a. Girls' Primary Completion Rate: The number of female students enrolled in the last grade of primary education minus repeaters divided by the population in the relevant age cohort (gross intake ratio in the last grade of primary). LICs are assessed on this indicator. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
b. Girls Secondary Enrollment Education: The number of female pupils enrolled in lower secondary school, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the population of females in the theoretical age group for lower secondary education. LMICs will be assessed on this indicator instead of Girls Primary Completion Rates. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
6. Child Health: An index made up of three indicators: (i) Access to improved water, (ii) access to improved sanitation, and (iii) child (ages 1-4) mortality. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: The Center for International Earth Science Information Network and the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy
Within each policy category, the Act sets out a number of specific selection criteria. A set of objective and quantifiable policy indicators is used to inform eligibility decisions for MCA assistance and to measure the relative performance by candidate countries against these criteria. The Board's approach to determining eligibility ensures that performance against each of these criteria is assessed by at least one of the objective indicators. Most are addressed by multiple indicators. The specific indicators appear in parentheses next to the corresponding criterion set out in the Act.
Section 607(b)(1): Just and democratic governance, including a demonstrated commitment to—
(A) promote political pluralism, equality and the rule of law (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, and Gender in the Economy);
(B) respect human and civil rights, including the rights of people with disabilities (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, and Freedom of Information);
(C) protect private property rights (Civil Liberties, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Land Rights and Access);
(D) encourage transparency and accountability of government (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Freedom of Information, Control of Corruption, Rule of Law, and Government Effectiveness); and
(E) combat corruption (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, Freedom of Information, and Control of Corruption);
Section 607(b)(2): Economic freedom, including a demonstrated commitment to economic policies that—
(A) encourage citizens and firms to participate in global trade and international capital markets (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade Policy, and Regulatory Quality);
(B) promote private sector growth (Inflation, Business Start-Up, Fiscal Policy, Land Rights and Access, Access to Credit, Gender in the Economy, and Regulatory Quality);
(C) strengthen market forces in the economy (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade Policy, Business Start-Up, Land Rights and Access, Access to Credit, and Regulatory Quality); and
(D respect worker rights, including the right to form labor unions (Civil Liberties and Gender in the Economy); and
Section 607(b)(3): Investments in the people of such country, particularly women and children, including programs that—
(A) promote broad-based primary education (Girls' Primary Completion Rate, Girls' Secondary Education Enrollment Rate, and Total Public Expenditure on Primary Education);
(B) strengthen and build capacity to provide quality public health and reduce child mortality (Immunization Rates, Public Expenditure on Health, and Child Health); and
(C) promote the protection of biodiversity and the transparent and sustainable management and use of natural resources (Natural Resource Protection).
MCC reporting and data in the following chart are used to assess compact performance of MCC partners nearing the end of compact implementation (
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
The NCUA intends to submit the following information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This information collection is published to obtain comments from the public. NCUA previously amended its credit union service organization (CUSO) regulation to increase transparency and address certain safety and soundness concerns. The final rule extends certain requirements of the CUSO regulation to federally insured, state-chartered credit unions and imposes new requirements on federally insured credit unions (FICUs). Under the amended rule, FICUs with an investment in, or loan to, a CUSO must obtain a written agreement with the CUSO addressing accounting, financial statements, audits, reporting, and legal opinions. The rule limits the ability of a “less than adequately capitalized” FICU to recapitalize an insolvent CUSO. All CUSOs are required to annually provide basic profile information to NCUA and the appropriate state supervisory authority (SSA). CUSOs engaging in certain complex or high-risk activities are also required to report more detailed information, including audited financial statements and customer information.
Comments will be accepted until October 28, 2015.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the NCUA Contact and the OMB Reviewer listed below:
Requests for additional information, a copy of the information collection request, or a copy of submitted comments should be directed to:
NCUA is revising the currently approved collection of information, OMB Control Number, 3133-0149, to reflect amendments to 12 CFR part 712. Part 712 implements authority in the Federal Credit Union Act
Specifically, under the amended rule, FICUs with an investment in, or loan to, a CUSO must obtain a written agreement with the CUSO (or revise any current agreement the FICU has with a CUSO) to provide that the CUSO will: (1) Account for all its transactions in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); (2) prepare quarterly financial statements and obtain an annual financial statement audit of its financial statements by a licensed certified public accountant; (3) provide complete access to the books and records of the CUSO; and (4) annually report directly to NCUA and the appropriate state supervisory authority (SSA) certain financial and other information prescribed by the rule. 12 CFR 712.3(d).
The report (CUSO Registry) must contain basic registration information, including the CUSO's name and address, point of contact, services offered, the names and charter numbers of credit unions investing in, lending to, or receiving services from the CUSO, and investor and subsidiary information. In addition, for any CUSO engaged in complex or high-risk activities, as defined in the rule, the report must contain additional, enhanced, more detailed information, including audited financial statements and more specific customer information. 12 CFR 712.3(d)(4). NCUA plans to implement secure online technology for the CUSOs' direct submission of financial and other reports. Development of the CUSO Registry is underway, which will provide fully electronic reporting by CUSOs.
A FICU and a CUSO must be operated in a manner that demonstrates to the public the separate corporate existence of the FICU and the CUSO. Section 712.4(b) requires that prior to investing in a CUSO, the FICU must obtain a written legal opinion confirming the CUSO is established in a legally sufficient way to limit the FICU's exposure to loss of its loans or investments in the CUSO. 12 CFR 712.4(b).
The amendments also require that a FICU that is, or as a result of recapitalizing an insolvent CUSO, will become less than adequately capitalized must, under certain circumstances, obtain NCUA (or SSA, if applicable) approval to recapitalize a CUSO that has become insolvent. 12 CFR 712.2(d).
NCUA previously requested comments in response to a notice on “Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection, Credit Union Service Organizations” due September 4, 2015. (80 FR 38475, July 6, 2015). NCUA received a few comments in response to this sixty-day notice. Staff carefully reviewed and considered these comments.
In particular, with regard to concern about confidentiality, the rule addresses documents, such as an agreement
In summary, Part 712 contains the following information collection (IC) requirements:
(IC 1.) Obtain Written Agreement. Before making a loan to, or investment in, a CUSO, a FICU must obtain a written agreement from the CUSO (or revise any current agreement the FICU has with a CUSO) that the CUSO will: Follow generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); prepare financial statements at least quarterly and obtain an annual opinion audit from a licensed certified public accountant; provide access to its books and records to NCUA and the appropriate SSA; and file financial and other reports directly with NCUA and the appropriate SSA;
(IC 2.) Obtain Written Legal Opinion. A FICU must obtain a written legal opinion confirming the CUSO is established in a legally sufficient way to limit the credit union's exposure to loss of its loans to, or investments in, the CUSO;
(IC 3.) Obtain Regulatory Approval. Any FICU that is or, as a result of recapitalizing an insolvent CUSO will become, less than adequately capitalized, must seek NCUA approval before recapitalizing an insolvent CUSO; and
(IC 4.) CUSO Reporting. A CUSO with an investment or loan from a FICU must annually submit a report directly to NCUA and the appropriate SSA that contains financial and other information prescribed in the rule. All CUSOs are required to provide basic profile information to NCUA and the appropriate SSA. CUSOs engaging in certain complex or high-risk activities are also required to report more detailed information, including audited financial statements and customer information.
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.
NCUA requests that you send any comments on the information collection requirements for Credit Union Service Organizations, 12 CFR part 712, to the locations listed in the
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National Council on the Arts will be held at Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506. Agenda times are approximate.
Friday, October 30, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in Conference Rooms A and B (This session will be open and also will be webcast).
Office of Public Affairs, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, at 202/682-5570.
The meeting on October 30th will be open to the public on a space available basis. The tentative agenda is as follows: The session will begin at 9:00 a.m. with opening remarks and voting on recommendations for funding and rejection and guidelines, followed by updates from the Chairman. There also will be the following presentations (times are approximate): from 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.—
The session also will be webcast. To register to watch the webcasting of this meeting, go to
If, in the course of the open session discussion, it becomes necessary for the Council to discuss non-public commercial or financial information of intrinsic value, the Council will go into closed session pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, and in accordance with the February 15, 2012 determination of the Chairman. Additionally, discussion concerning purely personal information about individuals, such as personal biographical and salary data or medical information, may be conducted by the Council in closed session in accordance with subsection (c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Any interested persons may attend, as observers, Council discussions and reviews that are open to the public. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of Accessibility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5733, Voice/T.T.Y. 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Applications Received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated 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 permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by October 28, 2015. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Li Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
1.
Take, ASPA, Import, Export; The applicant intends to opportunistically collect sediments and organic remains from around active & abandoned penguin colonies, and to obtain body and tail feathers from gentoo, chinstrap, and Adélie penguins from breeding sites in the South Orkneys, South Shetland, and Antarctic Peninsula regions, Ross Sea and Victoria Land Coast, vicinity of McMurdo Station, and East Antarctica. Access to these sites will be by foot, zodiac, helicopter, Twin Otter and other vessels including commercial tour ships. These samples will be used to help interpret decadal and millennial-scale shifts in the diets and population movements of Antarctic krill predators in concert with climate variability and commercial harvesting. For each species, up to 3 colonies per year will be sampled with up to 20 individuals (adults or chicks) sampled per colony. Samples will be sent back to the USA and the UK for analysis.
South Orkneys, South Shetland and Antarctic Peninsula regions, Ross Sea and Victoria Land Coast, vicinity of McMurdo Station, East Antarctica. Sites will be on an opportunistic basis and may include some of the following ASPAs: 102, Rookery Islands, Holme Bay; 103, Ardrey Island and Odbert Island; 104, Sabrina Island, Balleny Islands; 105, Beaufort Island, Ross Sea; 106, Cape Hallett, Victoria Land; 107, Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay; 108, Green Island, Berthelot Islands; 109, Moe Island, South Orkney Islands; 110, Lynch Island, South Orkney Islands; 111, Southern Powell Island and adjacent islands, South Orkney Island; 112, Coppermine Peninsula, Robert Island; 113, Litchfield Island, Arthur Harbor, Palmer Archipelago; 114, North Coronation Island, South Orkney Islands; 115, Lagotellerie Island, Marguerite Bay; 116, “New College Valley”, Caughley Beach, Cape Bird, Ross Island; 117, Avian Island, Northwest Marguerite Bay; 121, Cape Royds, Ross Island; 124, Cape Crozier, Ross Island; 125, Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands; 126, Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island; 127, Haswell Island; 128, Western Shore of Admiralty Bay, King George Island; 129, Rothera Point, Adelaide Island; 132, Potter Peninsula, King George Island; 133, Harmony Point, Nelson Island; 134, Cierva Point offshore islands, Danco Coast; 135, North-East Bailey Peninsula, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land; 136, Clark Peninsula, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land; 139, Biscoe Point, Anvers Island; 149, Cape Shirreff, Livingston Island; 150, Ardley Island, Maxwell Bay, King George Island; 159, Cape Adare; 160, Frazier Island, Wilkes Land; and 171, Narebski Point, Barton Peninsula, King George Island
December 1, 2015-August 31, 2019.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at title 45 part 671 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by October 28, 2015. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Li Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
1.
Waste Permit; The applicant wishes to fly small, battery operated, remotely controlled Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) equipped with cameras to take scenic photos and film of the Antarctic. The UASs would not be flown over concentrations of birds or mammals or over Antarctic Specially Protected Areas or Historic Sites and Monuments. The proposed pilot has paragliding, ultralight aircraft and helicopter pilot experience; over 15 years experience with remote controlled aircraft; and over 2 years experience and over 500 safe flights with the specific proposed UASs. The UASs would be equipped with flotation in the case of accidental landing, would only be flown over water after launching from an inflatable Zodiac boat, would only be flown when the wind is less than 25 knots, and visual contact would be maintained with the vehicle at all times. The applicant is seeking a Waste Permit to cover any accidental releases that may result from flying a UAS.
Antarctic Peninsula region and South Georgia.
November 1, 2015 to March 31, 2017.
September 28, October 5, 12, 19, 26, November 2, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
By a vote of 4-0 on September 22, 2015 the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that the above referenced Affirmation Session be held with less than one week notice to the public. The meeting is scheduled on September 24, 2015.
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.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 2, 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
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
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).
Notice and request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received within thirty (30) calendar days of publication of this Notice.
Mail all comments and requests for copies of the subject form to OPIC's Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527. See
OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, (202)336-8558.
OPIC received no comments in response to the sixty (60) day notice published in
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .20 to Rule 103 (“NYSE Rule 103.20”), to permit member organizations that operate as Designated Market Maker (“DMM”) units on the Exchange and also operate DMM units on the NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) to make an adjustment to Excess Net Capital. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A., B., and C. below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 103.20, which sets forth the net liquid assets requirements for a member organization that operates as DMM a [sic] unit on the Exchange,
NYSE Rule 103.20 sets forth a Net Liquid Assets requirement for DMM units that exceed [sic] the SEC Net Capital Rule minimum net capital requirement applicable to market-making activities. The purpose of the Exchange's requirement is to reasonably assure that each DMM unit maintains sufficient liquidity to carry out its obligation to maintain a fair and orderly market in its assigned securities in times of market stress.
Rule 103.20(a) defines “Net Liquid Assets” as the sum of (A) “Excess Net Capital” and (B) “Liquidity” dedicated to the DMM unit. Excess Net Capital has the same meaning as the term excess net capital as computed in accordance with the SEC Net Capital Rule, which means the amount identified as item number 3770 of SEC Form X-17A-5 (“FOCUS Report”), except for DMM units that compute net capital under the alternative standard, for which it would mean item number 3910 of the FOCUS Report. Liquidity is defined as undrawn or actual borrowings that are dedicated to the DMM unit's business, as specified in Rule 103.20(a)(3)(A)-(C). Rule 103.20 requires that aggregate Net Liquid Assets of all DMM units equal at least $125 million and that each DMM unit maintain or have allocated to it Net Liquid Assets that are the greater of (1) $1 million, or (2) $125,000 for each one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of Exchange transaction dollar volume
Pursuant to NYSE MKT Rule 103.20, DMM units on NYSE MKT are required to calculate their NYSE MKT tentative net capital (“TNC”) requirement based on the greater of (i) $1,000,000 or (ii) the haircut charges on a theoretical position of 60 trading units of each assigned NYSE MKT DMM security and 20 trading units of each assigned Unlisted Trading Privileges DMM security. For NYSE MKT DMM units that also operate as DMMs on the NYSE, the haircuts on NYSE MKT DMM positions as computed pursuant to the SEC Net Capital Rule are deducted in computing Net Liquid Assets under NYSE Rule 103.20. DMM units operating on NYSE and NYSE MKT therefore incorporate the market risk charges (
The Exchange accordingly proposes to add a new section (6) to NYSE Rule 103.20(b), which sets forth the minimum Net Liquid Assets requirement,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change would not diminish the current levels of capital maintained by DMM units operating on both markets. The Exchange notes that it would continue to assess DMM unit financial requirements and that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), [sic] on behalf of the Exchange, would continue to monitor DMM unit compliance with NYSE Rule 103.20.
The Exchange proposes to notify DMM units of the implementation date of this rule change via a Member Education Bulletin.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that DMM units would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system by reducing the financial burden on DMM units operating on both the Exchange and NYSE MKT by eliminating the requirement to apply duplicative NYSE MKT DMM dealer haircuts. The Exchange believes that permitting DMM units operating on both marketplaces to take an adjustment would prevent those units from taking NYSE MKT DMM positions into consideration twice as part of the Excess Net Capital calculation under NYSE Rule 103.20, thereby potentially lowering the DMM units' Excess Net Capital available to meet their Net Liquid Assets requirements. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule would continue to assure that DMM units have sufficient liquidity to carry out their obligations to maintain an orderly market in their assigned securities in times of market stress.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed change would protect investors and the public interest by reducing existing barriers to entry for new DMM units and mitigating the potential loss of existing DMM units. Stabilizing and increasing the pool of DMM units with a more efficient financial structure would be beneficial to the Exchange and would also enhance market quality and thereby support investor protection and public interest goals.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
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 proposed change is designed to permit DMM units operating on the Exchange and NYSE MKT to make an adjustment to Excess Net Capital to add back haircuts on NYSE MKT DMM positions and avoid taking these haircuts into consideration twice, but would not affect the overall level thereof. This proposed change would eliminate a potential barrier to entry for new DMM units interested in operating on both markets, thereby promoting competition.
The Exchange notes that market makers and traders on other U.S. equity exchanges are not subject to net capital requirements beyond those required by the SEC Net Capital Rule. Nonetheless, DMM units have unique affirmative obligations and the Exchange continues to believe that it is appropriate that their financial requirements be higher than other market participants. The proposal would support competition by making DMM unit financial requirements more manageable for member organizations, including both existing and potential future DMM units, and would thereby promote greater interest in seeking DMM unit appointments on the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting the services it offers and the requirements it imposes to remain competitive with other U.S. equity exchanges.
For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-39. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-39 and should be submitted on or before October 19, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
ISE Gemini proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees as described in more detail below. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization 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 its Schedule of Fees to increase Taker Fees and Fees for Responses to Crossing Orders
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to increase fees for non-Priority Customer orders in Non-Penny Symbols as the proposed Taker Fee is marginally higher than ISE's current fees and is set at a level ISE believes will remain attractive to its members. Further, the proposed Taker Fee is within the range of fees charged by other options exchanges, including, for example, the Nasdaq Options Market (“NOM”), which charges a fee of $0.94 per contract for Non-Priority Customer orders in Non-Penny Pilot Symbols.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an Email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of Meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank Investor Advisory Committee.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, October 15, 2015 from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received on or before October 15, 2015.
The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
Use the Commission's Internet submission form(
Send an email message to
Send paper statements to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Marc Oorloff Sharma, Senior Special Counsel, Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202) 551-3302, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
The meeting will be open to the public, except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the contact person listed in
The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a discussion of recent market structure developments; a discussion of exchange-traded fund pricing; a report of the Committee chair regarding Committee matters; a discussion of SEC enforcement priorities; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 503.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 503 to codify existing functionality during the Exchange's Opening Process. Specifically, the Exchange is amending Rule 503(f) to address a discrepancy between the rule text description of how this process works and how it is actually working in production. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule to provide that the System will use the Expanded Quote Range (“EQR”) when there are quotes and orders that lock or cross each other. The proposal codifies the actual existing functionality during the Exchange's Opening Process. In addition, the Exchange proposes to relocate the EQR subsection that is currently in Rule 503(f)(5) to proposed Rule 503(f)(2)(i).
Currently Rule 503(f) provides that when there are quotes and orders that lock or cross an order, the System will use the highest bid and the lowest offer among valid width quotations received that have a bid/ask differential that is compliant with Rule 603(b)(4) to determine the highest quote bid and lowest quote offer.
The EQR calculation itself varies depending upon the specific situation, as specified in current Rule 503(f)(5). The EQR calculation will differ depending upon whether one or more away markets have disseminated valid width quotes in the affected series (or) no away markets have disseminated valid width quotes in the affected series.
While the System calculates EQR in either situation, it does not necessarily use the EQR in determining the calculated opening price where the maximum quantity of contracts may trade. For example, proposed Rule 503(f)(2)(iii) would state that in situations where there is matched interest that does not represent an imbalance and there is no valid width NBBO, the System will calculate a “quality opening market range” (as defined in a table to be determined by
The Exchange notes that in most situations there is no impact in the outcome of the opening due to the proposed change in the rule text to use the EQR instead of the highest bid and the lowest offer among valid width quotations received that have a bid/ask differential that is compliant with Rule 603(b)(4). For example—assume a quote bid of $1.00 for 5 contracts and a quote offer of $0.90 for 5 contracts on MIAX; away market 1 has a bid $0.01; away market 2 has an offer of $5.05. The Exchange should open because $.90-$1.00 for 5 contracts on either side is within a $5 bid/ask differential and leaves no imbalance. Instead, however, the System in this situation calculates a price range for the open based on an EQR to include the one or more away markets. After determining that the away markets do not have a valid width quote and that it is a crossed market ($0.01 bid by $5.05 offer is not a valid quote range), the System will calculate the EQR using the Exchange's highest valid width bid and lowest valid width offer ($.90 offer by $1.00 bid is a valid quote range). In this example, the Exchange would open the same under the proposed changes to Rule 503 as it does in the current version of the rule.
If the current rule were applied in situations where quotes or orders lock or cross, and there are no valid-width away markets, the System would have nonetheless calculated the highest bid and the lowest offer among valid width quotations received on MIAX that have a bid/ask differential that is compliant with Rule 603(b)(4). The following example illustrates this scenario.
Assume a quote bid of $1.00 for 5 contracts and quote offer of $0.90 for 5 contracts on MIAX; assume away market 1 has a bid $0.10; away market 2 has an offer of $5.20 (an invalid width ABBO). The System in this situation calculates a price range for the open based on an EQR that does not include the one or more away markets. In this example, the System sets the EQR to $0.90-$1.00, using the lowest quote offer and the highest quote bid.
Assume again a quote bid of $1.00 for 5 contracts and a quote offer of $0.90 for 5 contracts on MIAX; assume away market 1 has a bid $0.85; away market 2 has an offer of $1.10 (a valid width ABBO). The System in this situation calculates a price range for the open based on an EQR that includes the one or more away markets. After determining that the away markets have a valid width quote and that the MIAX market is crossed, the System sets the EQR to $0.85-$1.10, using the valid-width ABBO.
If the current rule were applied, the System would have calculated the EQR if there had been an imbalance, using the Exchange's highest valid width bid and lowest valid width offer ($.90 offer by $1.00 bid is a valid quote range), and would open only within the limited $0.90-$1.00 range. In each of the above examples, under the current rule and under the proposed change, the System would open with a trade of 5 contracts at $0.95, the price at which the greatest number of contracts can trade.
The following examples illustrate that the EQR is calculated in all situations,
Assume again quote bids of $0.90 and $0.80 for 5 contracts each, and quote offers of $1.00 and $1.10 of 5 contracts each on MIAX; assume away market 1 has a bid $0.10; away market 2 has an offer of $5.20 (invalid width ABBO). No Imbalance exists. If the current Rule were to be applied, since there is no Imbalance, an EQR calculation would not occur. With no Imbalance and no crossing quotes or orders, no trade would occur. In each of these examples, because there is no trade, the Exchange would open by disseminating a quote as described in current Rule 503(f)(1).
In Examples 3 and 4, the only difference is whether an EQR is calculated or not. But no trade takes place in either case.
The Exchange believes that using the EQR instead of the current price range in Rule 503(f) is beneficial to market participants because the EQR provides a more accurate measure as to whether there is sufficient available liquidity in the broader market system to provide a fair and orderly opening process and sufficient price discovery for the options to open for trading because it incorporates the prices on away markets into its evaluation.
The Exchange also proposes to amend current Rule 503(f)(3) to provide that the provision applies to situations when the lock or cross involves an order or a quote, not just an order. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that if there are quotes or orders that lock or cross, the System will use the EQR to determine the highest and lowest price of the opening price range. Currently, to calculate the opening price, the System will take into consideration all valid Exchange quotes and all valid orders, together with other exchanges' markets for the series and identify the price at which the maximum number of contracts can trade. If that price is within the EQR and leaves no imbalance, the Exchange will open at that price, executing marketable trading interest, as long as the opening price includes only Exchange interest.
In addition, the Exchange proposes relocating the EQR subsection that is currently in Rule 503(f)(5) to proposed Rule 503(f)(2)(i). The Exchange believes that this change will reduce the potential for any confusion on the part of its members as to when the EQR is calculated and used during the Exchange's Opening Process. The Exchange also proposes deleting language regarding the imbalance from current Rule 503(f)(7) and relocating the subsection that is currently in Rule 503(f)(7) to proposed Rule 503(f)(2)(iii). In addition, the Exchange also proposes technical changes to the number formatting in current Rule 503(f) in order to reduce the potential for confusion as to which provisions in Rule 503(f) apply to situations where there are quotes and orders that lock and cross each other.
MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed amendments remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest by amending the rules regarding the Exchange's Opening Process. The inclusion of the functionality of the System in the rules promotes transparency and clarity in the Exchange's Opening Process. The transparency and accuracy resulting from the codification of this functionality is consistent with the Act because it removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest, by accurately describing the steps taken by the System in the limited scenario where the Exchange's opening quote is crossed by orders that have the same size. Participants in the Exchange's opening will have a better understanding of the Exchange's opening process when there are quotes and orders that lock and cross each other. In addition, the Exchange believes that the function of the EQR itself is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade by providing a clear and objective method to enable a fair and orderly opening on the exchange to the benefits of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that using the EQR instead of the current price range in Rule 503(f) is beneficial to market participants because the EQR represents a more accurate measure of the true market for an option on the opening (especially after providing participants with an opportunity to submit new quotes before the EQR is calculated). This step providing that opportunity, now codified in the Rule should reduce the probability of imbalances and will assure participants in the Exchange's opening process that they have the ability to submit new opening quotes in response to an imbalance message. This process is fair because it provides such an opportunity for all participants, and is orderly because that opportunity must take place before the EQR is calculated. Moreover, the imbalance message followed by the EQR calculation is more efficient because it functions to eliminate unnecessary delays in the opening process by allowing participants to submit new quotations against which opening orders and quotes may trade.
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. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed changes will not impose any burden on intra-market competition because it applies to all MIAX participants equally. In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition as the proposal is intended to protect investors by providing further transparency regarding the Exchange's Opening Process. The Exchange believes that using the EQR instead of the current price range in Rule 503(f) is beneficial to market participants because the EQR provides a more accurate measure as to whether there is sufficient available liquidity in the broader market system to provide a fair and orderly opening process and sufficient price discovery for the options to open for trading to the benefit of investors. As such, the Exchange believes that the EQR will not be a burden on competition, but rather promote more trading opportunities and competition during the opening since it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade by providing a clear and objective method to enable a fair and orderly opening on the exchange to the benefits of investors and the public interest.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) under Section 309 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations, SBA by this notice declares null and void the license to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 03/03-0240 issued to Innovation Ventures, L.P
United States Small Business Administration.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
As part of its regular business meeting held on September 10, 2015, in Binghamton, New York, the Commission took the following actions: (1) Approved or tabled the applications of certain water resources projects; (2) approved a request from Panda Power Funds for transfer of ownership of Hummel Station LLC; (3) accepted a settlement in lieu of penalty from Downs Racing L.P.; and (4) took additional actions, as set forth in the
September 10, 2015.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
In addition to the actions taken on projects identified in the summary above and the listings below, the following items were also presented or acted upon at the business meeting: (1) Adoption of revisions to Resolution No. 2013-11; (2) release of proposed rulemaking to address shortcomings in the rules for transfer of approvals, create a category for minor modifications, establish a procedure for issuing general permits, and address other minor enhancements; (3) adoption of amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the Water Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin; (5) approval of grants; (6) a report on delegated settlements with the following project sponsors, pursuant to SRBC Resolution 2014-15: Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc., in the amount of $6,000; Conyngham Borough Authority, in the amount of $5,000; Keister Miller Investments, LLC, in the amount of $2,000; Susquehanna Gas Field Services, LLC, in the amount of $2,500; and Wynding Brook, Inc. d/b/a Wynding Brook Golf Club, in the amount of $5,000; and (7) approval to extend the term of emergency certificates with Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. to September 1, 2016, and with Furman Foods, Inc. to December 3, 2015.
The Commission approved a settlement in lieu of civil penalty for the following project:
1. Downs Racing L.P., Plains Township, Luzerne County, Pa.—$25,000.
The Commission approved the following project applications:
1. Project Sponsor and Facility: Caernarvon Township Authority, Caernarvon Township, Berks County, Pa. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.673 mgd (30-day average) from Well 7.
2. Project Sponsor and Facility: Chetremon Golf Course, LLC, Burnside Township, Clearfield County, Pa. Consumptive water use of up to 0.200 mgd (peak day).
3. Project Sponsor and Facility: Chetremon Golf Course, LLC (Irrigation Storage Pond), Burnside Township, Clearfield County, Pa. Surface water withdrawal of up to 0.200 mgd (peak day).
4. Project Sponsor and Facility: Chief Oil & Gas LLC (Loyalsock Creek), Forksville Borough, Sullivan County, Pa. Surface water withdrawal of up to 1.500 mgd (peak day).
5. Project Sponsor and Facility: JELD-WEN, inc. Fiber Division—PA, Wysox Township, Bradford County, Pa. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.252 mgd (30-day average) from Well 1.
6. Project Sponsor and Facility: JELD-WEN, inc. Fiber Division—PA, Wysox Township, Bradford County, Pa. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.252 mgd (30-day average) from Well 4.
7. Project Sponsor and Facility: JELD-WEN, inc. Fiber Division—PA, Wysox Township, Bradford County, Pa. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.323 mgd (30-day average) from Well 5.
8. Project Sponsor and Facility: JELD-WEN, inc. Fiber Division—PA, Wysox Township, Bradford County, Pa. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.323 mgd (30-day average) from Well 6.
9. Project Sponsor and Facility: JELD-WEN, inc. Fiber Division—PA, Wysox Township, Bradford County, Pa. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.345 mgd (30-day average) from Well 7.
10. Project Sponsor and Facility: JELD-WEN, inc. Fiber Division—PA, Wysox Township, Bradford County, Pa. Consumptive water use of up to 0.499 mgd (peak day).
11. Project Sponsor and Facility: Keister Miller Investments, LLC (West Branch Susquehanna River), Mahaffey Borough, Clearfield County, Pa. Surface water withdrawal of up to 1.000 mgd (peak day).
12. Project Sponsor and Facility: Lycoming County Water and Sewer Authority, Fairfield Township, Lycoming County, Pa. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.180 mgd (30-day average) from Production Well 3.
13. Project Sponsor and Facility: Moxie Freedom LLC, Salem Township, Luzerne County, Pa. Consumptive water use of up to 0.092 mgd (peak day).
14. Project Sponsor and Facility: Moxie Freedom LLC, Salem Township, Luzerne County, Pa. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.062 mgd (30-day average) from Production Well 1.
15. Project Sponsor and Facility: Seneca Resources Corporation (Marsh Creek), Delmar Township, Tioga County, Pa. Renewal of surface water
16. Project Sponsor and Facility: Shrewsbury Borough, York County, Pa. Renewal and modification to increase groundwater withdrawal by an additional 0.024 mgd (30-day average), for a total of up to 0.089 mgd (30-day average) from the Blouse Well (Docket No. 19820103).
17. Project Sponsor and Facility: Shrewsbury Borough, York County, Pa. Renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.099 mgd (30-day average) from the Smith Well (Docket No. 19811203).
18. Project Sponsor and Facility: Talisman Energy USA Inc. (Wappasening Creek), Windham Township, Bradford County, Pa. Renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 1.000 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20110621).
19. Project Sponsor: UGI Development Company. Project Facility: Hunlock Creek Energy Center, Hunlock Township, Luzerne County, Pa. Modification to increase consumptive water use by an additional 1.526 mgd (peak day), for a total of up to 2.396 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20090916).
20. Project Sponsor and Facility: XTO Energy, Inc. (West Branch Susquehanna River), Chapman Township, Clinton County, Pa. Renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 2.000 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20110911).
The Commission tabled action on the following project applications:
1. Project Sponsor and Facility: Furman Foods, Inc., Point Township, Northumberland County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.320 mgd (30-day average) from Well 1 (Docket No. 19850901).
2. Project Sponsor and Facility: Furman Foods, Inc., Point Township, Northumberland County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.190 mgd (30-day average) from Well 4 (Docket No. 19850901).
3. Project Sponsor and Facility: Furman Foods, Inc., Point Township, Northumberland County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.090 mgd (30-day average) from Well 7 (Docket No. 19850901).
4. Project Sponsor: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Conservation and Restoration. Project Facility: Cresson Mine Drainage Treatment Plant, Cresson Borough, Cambria County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal from Argyle Stone Bridge Well for inclusion in treatment of up to 6.300 mgd (30-day average) from four sources.
5. Project Sponsor: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Conservation and Restoration. Project Facility: Cresson Mine Drainage Treatment Plant, Cresson Township, Cambria County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal from Cresson No. 9 Well for inclusion in treatment of up to 6.300 mgd (30-day average) from four sources.
6. Project Sponsor: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Conservation and Restoration. Project Facility: Cresson Mine Drainage Treatment Plant, Gallitzin Township, Cambria County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal from Gallitzin Shaft Well 2A (Gallitzin Shaft #2) for inclusion in treatment of up to 6.300 mgd (30-day average) from four sources.
7. Project Sponsor: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Conservation and Restoration. Project Facility: Cresson Mine Drainage Treatment Plant, Gallitzin Township, Cambria County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal from Gallitzin Shaft Well 2B (Gallitzin Shaft #1) for inclusion in treatment of up to 6.300 mgd (30-day average) from four sources.
8. Project Sponsor and Facility: SWN Production Company, LLC (Tioga River), Hamilton Township, Tioga County, Pa. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 2.000 mgd (peak day).
The Commission approved the following request for conditional transfer:
1. Panda Power Funds request for transfer of ownership of Hummel Station LLC (Docket Nos. 20081222 and 20081222-2). Transferred dockets will include modification of conditions requiring mitigation of all consumptively used water.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For Caltrans: Cristin Hallissy, Branch Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch, California Department of Transportation, District 4, 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612; telephone 510-622-8717; email
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that the Caltrans has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
The express lanes would extend 36.55 miles in length on US 101 from Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill to Oregon Expressway/Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto and 1.1 miles of SR-85 from the northern end of SR 85 to the US 101/SR-85 interchange in Mountain View. The project would also convert the SR 85/US 101 HOV direct connectors in Mountain View to express lane connectors and add auxiliary lanes in both directions on US 101 between Great America Parkway and Lawrence Expressway, and in the northbound direction between Old Bayshore Freeway and North First Street. The total project length is 37.65 miles.
The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project, approved on July 21, 2015, and in other documents in the Caltrans project records. The EA/FONSI and other project records are available by contacting Caltrans at the addresses provided above. The Caltrans EA/FONSI can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
This notice applies to all 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 and 23 U.S.C. 128].
2. Air Quality: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)].
3. 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].
4. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f)
5. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)].
6. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act (Section 404, Section 401, Section 319) [33 U.S.C. 1251-1377].
7. Hazardous Waste: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 [42 U.S.C. 9601-9628]; Toxic Substances Control Act [15 U.S.C. 2601-2629]; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [7 U.S.C. 121-134]; Occupational Safety and Health Act [29 U.S.C. 651]; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 [42 U.S.C. 6901].
9. Executive Orders: E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 13112, Invasive Species; E.O. 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards.
23 U.S.C. 139(
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (Department) or (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), this notice announces that the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of the Secretary (OST) is submitting a request to the Office of Management Budget (OMB) for approval of the new information collections described below. On November 12, 2013, the Department gave 60 day notice of its intent to obtain OMB control numbers authorizing the new information collections in its final rule amending the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) implementing regulation, 14 CFR part 382 (part 382), Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Comments on this notice must be received by October 28, 2015.
Your comments should be identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0177 and may be submitted through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Maegan L. Johnson or Blane A. Workie, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590, 202-366-9342 (Voice), 202-366-7152 (Fax), or
While the content and design of the online service request form is up to the carriers, the Department anticipates that each covered U.S. and foreign carrier that markets scheduled air transportation to the general public in the United States would incur initial costs associated with developing and reviewing a design and implementation plan for the request form, developing, coding, and integrating the form into the Web site, as well as testing, debugging, and connecting the form with a backend database to store the information. The revised final regulatory analysis (FRA) estimated that it will take an average of 32 labor hours per carrier to develop, implement, integrate, connect, and test the online request form. Should carrier associations or some other entity develop a common request form that all carriers could adapt and incorporate to their Web sites, the initial costs per carrier would be reduced.
In order to be in conformance with the accessibility standard required by the final DOT rule, carriers must provide a disclaimer notice for each link on their primary Web site that enables a user to access software or an external Web site that is not in the carrier's control. The disclaimer notice must be activated the first time a user clicks the link and must notify the user that the application/Web site is not within the carrier's control and may not follow the same accessibility policies as the primary Web site. The Department anticipates that each covered U.S. and foreign carrier that markets scheduled air transportation to the general public in the United States will incur costs associated with identifying all links on their Web sites that may require a disclaimer such as developing and reviewing the design and language for the disclaimer notice, as well as developing, testing, and deploying the code to the appropriate Web pages.
The incremental labor hours associated with providing the required disclaimer may vary depending on the number of links on the Web site to which this requirement applies. The FRA estimated that it will take an average of 6 labor hours per carrier to identify the links and then develop, test, and deploy the disclaimer notice on the Web site.
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 a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Certificate of Identity.
Written comments should be received on or before November 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for further information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street, A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Ron Lewis; 200 Third Street, Room 515, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
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 a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Claim for Relief on Account of Loss, Theft, or Destruction of U.S. Registered Securities.
Written comments should be received on or before November 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for further information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street, A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Ron Lewis; 200 Third Street, Room 515, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
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 a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Report/Application for Relief on Account of Loss, Theft, or Destruction of U.S. Bearer Securities (Individuals).
Written comments should be received on or before November 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for further information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street, A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Ron Lewis; 200 Third Street, Room 515, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
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 a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Special Form of Request for Payment of US Savings and Retirement Securities Where Use of a Detached Request is Authorized.
Written comments should be received on or before November 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for further information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street, A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Ron Lewis; 200 Third Street, Room 515, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
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 a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning Pools and Associations—Annual Letter.
Written comments should be received on or before November 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for further information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street, A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and in structions should be directed to Melvin Saunders, Program Manager, Surety Bonds, 3700 East West Highway, Room 632F, Hyattsville, MD 20782, (202) 874-5283.
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 a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Affidavit of Forgery for United States Bonds/Notes.
Written comments should be received on or before November 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for further information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street, A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Ron Lewis; 200 Third Street, Room 515, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
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
Written comments should be received on or before November 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for further information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street, A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Ron Lewis; 200 Third Street, Room 515, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
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 a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Affidavit by Individual Surety.
Written comments should be received on or before November 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for further information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street, A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Ron Lewis; 200 Third Street, Room 515, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
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 a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Report/Application for Relief on Account of Loss, Theft, or Destruction of U.S. Bearer Securities (Organizations).
Written comments should be received on or before November 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for further information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street, A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Ron Lewis; 200 Third Street, Room 515, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
| 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 |