| Page Range | 68421-68742 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 68539 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 80 FR 68579 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 80 FR 68444 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CA | |
| 80 FR 68444 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Alameda, CA | |
| 80 FR 68445 - Safety Zones; Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessels, Puget Sound, WA | |
| 80 FR 68573 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 | |
| 80 FR 68580 - Identifying Sources of Agricultural Innovation | |
| 80 FR 68520 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 80 FR 68580 - Notice of a Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 68504 - Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc., Subzone 119I, (Textile-Based Personal Flotation Devices); Notice of Public Hearing and Extension of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 68484 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and South Coast Air Quality Management District | |
| 80 FR 68481 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans, Louisiana | |
| 80 FR 68486 - Partial Approval and Disapproval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Clark County | |
| 80 FR 68534 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program | |
| 80 FR 68493 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (WIC ITFPS-2) Age 5 Extension Study | |
| 80 FR 68496 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 68536 - National Wetland Condition Assessment 2011 Draft Report | |
| 80 FR 68515 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Advisory Panel | |
| 80 FR 68539 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 68540 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 68563 - Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin From Canada, China, India, and Oman; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations | |
| 80 FR 68447 - Exempting Mental Health Peer Support Services From Copayments | |
| 80 FR 68578 - AmerenUE Combined License Application for Callaway Plant, Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant | |
| 80 FR 68513 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures; 2016 Research Fishery | |
| 80 FR 68479 - Exempting Mental Health Peer Support Services From Copayments | |
| 80 FR 68568 - Privacy Act of 1974; Privacy Act System of Records | |
| 80 FR 68579 - Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 | |
| 80 FR 68504 - Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances | |
| 80 FR 68511 - Barium Chloride From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 80 FR 68508 - Large Residential Washers From the Republic of Korea: Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014 | |
| 80 FR 68510 - Large Residential Washers From Mexico: Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014 | |
| 80 FR 68538 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Technological Advisory Council | |
| 80 FR 68547 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Development of Therapeutics To Treat Brain Injury and Neurodegenerative Disease | |
| 80 FR 68427 - Organization and Functions; Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Farm Credit Administration; Organization of the Farm Credit Administration | |
| 80 FR 68538 - Notice of Termination; 10414 Polk County Bank, Johnston, IA | |
| 80 FR 68539 - Notice of Termination; 10112 First Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri | |
| 80 FR 68557 - Notice of Proposed Supplementary Rules for Public Lands in New Mexico | |
| 80 FR 68492 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
| 80 FR 68492 - Notice of Intent To Seek Renewal of an Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 68557 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 68548 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of Meetings | |
| 80 FR 68550 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 68550 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 68549 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of Meetings | |
| 80 FR 68551 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 68547 - National Institute on Aging; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 68547 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 68549 - Center for Scientific Review Amended; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 68548 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 68550 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 68551 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 68550 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 68552 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, Without Change, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 68512 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Southwest Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research | |
| 80 FR 68523 - City of Watervliet; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests | |
| 80 FR 68534 - Newburgh Hydro, LLC; Notice of Technical Conference | |
| 80 FR 68532 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725); Comment Request; Extension | |
| 80 FR 68527 - City of Osceola, Arkansas v. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Entergy Services, Inc., Notice of Complaint | |
| 80 FR 68528 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 68524 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 68520 - Combined Notice of Filings #3 | |
| 80 FR 68526 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 68531 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 68521 - Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Transco to Charleston Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings | |
| 80 FR 68526 - Notice of Teleconference | |
| 80 FR 68525 - Notice of Revised Restricted Service List for a Programmatic Agreement for Managing Properties Included in or Eligible for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places | |
| 80 FR 68498 - Yavapai Resource Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 68555 - Proposed Safe Harbor Agreement for the Reestablishment of the California Red-Legged Frog in the Santa Monica Mountains, California | |
| 80 FR 68504 - Transportation and Related Equipment; Technical Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 68477 - Airworthiness Directives; Quest Aircraft Design, LLC Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 68572 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 80 FR 68572 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 80 FR 68518 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 80 FR 68504 - Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting | |
| 80 FR 68618 - Hainesport Industrial Railroad, LLC-Corporate Family Transaction Exemption | |
| 80 FR 68554 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
| 80 FR 68565 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Bank Collective Investment Funds, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1991-38 | |
| 80 FR 68566 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Collective Investment Funds Conversion Transactions, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1997-41 | |
| 80 FR 68519 - Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors | |
| 80 FR 68567 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund Activity | |
| 80 FR 68618 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 80 FR 68498 - Notice of Availability of Proposed Changes to Section I of the Illinois Field Office Technical Guide for Public Review and Comment | |
| 80 FR 68529 - Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference | |
| 80 FR 68545 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 68540 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 68542 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 68543 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 68563 - Certain Blood Cholesterol Test Strips and Associated Systems Containing Same; Institution of investigation | |
| 80 FR 68599 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee-New Task | |
| 80 FR 68499 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2017 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey | |
| 80 FR 68584 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 | |
| 80 FR 68585 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Amending Sections 312.03(b) and 312.04 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual to Exempt Early Stage Companies From Having To Obtain Shareholder Approval Before Issuing Shares for Cash to Related Parties, Affiliates of Related Parties or Entities in Which a Related Party Has a Substantial Interest | |
| 80 FR 68590 - Order Exempting Certain Large Traders From the Self-Identification Requirements of Rule 13h-1 Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exempting Certain Broker-Dealers From the Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Monitoring Responsibilities Under the Rule | |
| 80 FR 68583 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 21.2, 21.6, and 21.7, as They Relate To Order Acceptance Time | |
| 80 FR 68581 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rules 21.2, 21.6, and 21.7, as They Relate to Order Acceptance Time | |
| 80 FR 68586 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to the Risk Monitor Mechanism | |
| 80 FR 68595 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Risk Monitor Mechanism | |
| 80 FR 68473 - Kiwifruit Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate | |
| 80 FR 68424 - Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; Revision of Exemption Requirements | |
| 80 FR 68517 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 80 FR 68471 - Radio Frequency Devices, FCC Form 740 Temporary Suspension | |
| 80 FR 68537 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 80 FR 68421 - Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California and Imported Table Grapes; Relaxation of Handling Requirements | |
| 80 FR 68552 - Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) Meeting | |
| 80 FR 68568 - NASA Advisory Council; Charter Renewal | |
| 80 FR 68565 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 80 FR 68539 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 80 FR 68602 - BMW of North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
| 80 FR 68603 - Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2009 Ford F-150 Trucks Are Eligible for Importation | |
| 80 FR 68540 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 68480 - Periodic Reporting | |
| 80 FR 68440 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Van Nuys, CA | |
| 80 FR 68442 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Missouri Towns: Chillicothe, MO; Cuba, MO; Farmington, MO; Lamar, MO; Mountain View, MO; Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff, MO | |
| 80 FR 68484 - Air Plan Approval; TN; Knox County Emissions Statements | |
| 80 FR 68448 - Air Plan Approval; TN; Knox County Emissions Statements | |
| 80 FR 68491 - Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals | |
| 80 FR 68490 - Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements | |
| 80 FR 68453 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 80 FR 68451 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Major Source Permitting State Implementation Plan | |
| 80 FR 68458 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Test Methods; Error Correction | |
| 80 FR 68442 - Public Information, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Regulations | |
| 80 FR 68500 - Privacy Act System of Records, New System of Records | |
| 80 FR 68604 - New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) | |
| 80 FR 68465 - Disposition of Unclaimed Human Remains, Funerary Objects, Sacred Objects, or Objects of Cultural Patrimony | |
| 80 FR 68475 - Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines | |
| 80 FR 68545 - Minutes of Institutional Review Board Meetings: Guidance for Institutions and Institutional Review Boards; Draft Guidance; Availability | |
| 80 FR 68437 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 68623 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2016 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements | |
| 80 FR 68434 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 68432 - Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 68721 - Ocean Transportation Intermediary Licensing and Financial Responsibility Requirements, and General Duties | |
| 80 FR 68497 - Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests; Gunnison County; Colorado; Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects | |
| 80 FR 68429 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule implements a recommendation from the California Desert Grape Administrative Committee (Committee) to partially relax the handling requirements currently prescribed under the California table grape marketing order (order) and the table grape import regulation. The Committee locally administers the order and regulates the handling of table grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California. The import regulation is authorized under section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and regulates the importation of table grapes into the United States. This final rule relaxes the one-quarter pound minimum bunch size requirement in the order's regulations and the import regulation for U.S. No. 1 Table grade grapes packed in consumer packages known as clamshells weighing five pounds or less. Up to 20 percent of the weight of such containers may consist of single grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but consisting of at least five berries each. This action provides California desert grape handlers and importers with the flexibility to respond to ongoing marketing opportunities to meet consumer needs.
Effective April 1, 2016.
Kathie Notoro, Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This final rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 925, as amended (7 CFR part 925), regulating the handling of grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
This final rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including table grapes, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this final rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations issued under section 8e of the Act.
This final rule partially relaxes the one-quarter pound minimum bunch size requirement in the order's regulations and the import regulation for all U.S. No. 1 Table grade grapes packed in clamshell consumer packages weighing five pounds or less. Under the revision, up to 20 percent of the weight of such containers could consist of single grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but consisting of at least five berries each. This final rule provides California desert grape handlers and importers with the flexibility to respond to an ongoing marketing opportunity. The Committee met on November 5, 2013, and conducted an electronic vote on April 8, 2014, in which voters unanimously recommended the partial relaxation for California desert grapes. The change in the import regulation is required under section 8e of the Act.
Section 925.52(a)(1) of the order provides authority to regulate the handling of any grade, size, quality, maturity, or pack of any and all varieties of grapes during the season. Section 925.53 provides authority for the Committee to recommend to USDA changes to regulations issued pursuant to § 925.52. Section 925.55 specifies that when grapes are regulated pursuant to § 925.52, such grapes must be inspected by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service (FSIS) to ensure they meet applicable requirements.
Section 925.304(a) of the order's rules and regulations requires grapes to meet the minimum grade and size requirements of U.S. No. 1 Table; or to meet all the requirements of U.S. No. 1 Institutional, except that a tolerance of 33 percent is provided for off-size bunches. The requirements for the U.S. No. 1 Table and U.S. No. 1 Institutional grades are set forth in the United States Standards for Grades of Table Grapes
In 2010, the order's regulations were relaxed with respect to the bunch size requirement specified in the Standards (See, 75 FR 17031, affirmed at 75 FR 34343). This change permitted the use of bunch sizes smaller than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each, in packing consumer clamshell containers containing two pounds net weight or less. Not more than 20 percent of the weight of such containers could consist of these smaller bunches. This relaxation was made to allow handlers to take advantage of a new marketing opportunity for grapes packed in small clamshell containers. Prior to the relaxation, handlers were experiencing difficulty filling these containers properly with bunches weighing one-quarter pound or more; smaller bunches were needed to fill the corners of the square container configuration to achieve the desired weight.
Since the order's regulations were amended in 2010, customers nationwide have been increasingly requesting grapes in larger clamshell containers. Handlers experience difficulty properly filling the corners of these larger containers to the desired weights with bunches weighing one-quarter pound or more, similar to the problem they experienced with the smaller 2-pound clamshell containers. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the bunch size requirement in the order's regulations pertaining to U.S. No. 1 Table grade grapes be partially relaxed with respect to clamshell containers weighing 5 pounds or less. Under this action, up to 20 percent of the weight of such containers may consist of single grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each. This action allows handlers to continue to respond to increased marketing opportunities. Section 925.304(a) is revised accordingly.
Under section 8e of the Act, minimum grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements for table grapes imported into the United States are established under Table Grape Import Regulation 4 (7 CFR 944.503) (import regulation). This relaxation in the California Desert Grape Regulation 6 minimum bunch size requirement requires a corresponding relaxation to the minimum bunch size requirement for imported table grapes. Similar to the domestic industry, this action allows importers the flexibility to respond to an ongoing marketing opportunity to meet consumer needs. Section 944.503(a)(1) is revised accordingly.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 14 handlers of southeastern California grapes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and about 41 grape producers in the production area. In addition, there are about 102 importers of grapes. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201). Ten of the 14 handlers subject to regulation have annual grape sales of less than $7,000,000, according to USDA Market News Service and Committee data. Based on information from the Committee and USDA's Market News Service, it is estimated that at least 10 of the 41 producers have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, it may be concluded that a majority of grape handlers regulated under the order and about ten of the producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definitions.
Mexico, Chile, and Peru are the major countries that export table grapes to the United States. According to 2014 data from USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), shipments of table grapes imported into the United States from Mexico totaled 17,042,386 18-pound lugs, from Chile totaled 38,466,540 18-pound lugs, and from Peru totaled 5,065,653 18-pound lugs. According to FAS data, the total value of table grapes imported into the United States in 2014 was $1,189,848,000. It is estimated that the average importer received $11.7 million in revenue from the sale of table grapes in 2014. Based on this information, it may be concluded that the average table grape importer is not classified as a small entity.
This final rule revises § 925.304(a) of the rules and regulations of the California desert grape order and § 944.503(a)(1) of the table grape import regulation. This final rule partially relaxes the one-quarter pound minimum bunch size requirement in the order's regulations and the import regulation for U.S. No. 1 Table grade grapes packed in consumer clamshell packages weighing five pounds or less. Under the relaxation, up to 20 percent of the weight of each package may consist of single grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each. Authority for the change to the California desert grape rules and regulations is provided in §§ 925.52(a)(1) and 925.53. Authority for the change to the table grape import regulation is provided in section 8e of the Act.
There is general agreement in the industry for the need to expand the revised minimum bunch size requirement for grapes packed in these consumer clamshell packages to allow for more packaging options.
Regarding the impact of this final rule on affected entities, this rule provides both California desert grape handlers and importers the flexibility to continue to respond to an ongoing marketing opportunity to meet consumer needs. This marketing opportunity initially existed in the 2009 season, and the minimum bunch size regulations were revised for certain packages weighing two pounds or less on a test basis. In 2010, the regulation was revised permanently for consumer clamshell packages weighing two pounds or less due to the positive market response. This rule expands the revised requirements to include larger consumer clamshell packages weighing 5 pounds or less. Customers have been requesting larger sized clamshell packages, and this action enables handlers and importers to take advantage of increased market opportunities, which may result in increased shipments of consumer grape packages. This is expected to have a positive impact on producers, handlers, and importers.
No additional alternatives were considered because the 2010 revision produced the desired results. The Committee believes the partial relaxation of the bunch size requirement for grapes packed in larger consumer clamshell packages is appropriate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189. No
This final rule does not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large grape handlers or importers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this final rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Southeastern California grape industry, and all interested persons in the production area were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the November 5, 2013, meeting was a public meeting; and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
Twelve comments were received during the comment period in response to the proposal. Nine strongly supported the partial relaxation of the handling requirements and three comments were opposed.
One commenter who opposed the partial relaxation specifically for 5-pound clamshells or smaller stated that all consumer packages should be regulated similarly. This commenter also stated that if one clamshell container exceeds the 20 percent tolerance for small bunches, the entire lot is out of grade. The commenter indicated this has caused a problem for him in the past with 2-pound clamshell containers. The commenter also expressed concern that different grape quality standards are in effect at the same time. Finally, this commenter stated that he had not received notification of the November 5, 2013, meeting.
In response to these comments, it is noted that the relaxed bunch size requirements do not apply to all consumer packages. As indicated in the proposed rule, the Committee's recommendation was specific to clamshell containers because smaller clusters of grapes are needed to fill the corners of these square containers. This aspect of the rule and its rationale is identical to the previous regulation that applied to 2-pound containers. Similar issues regarding other consumer containers were not reported or discussed by the Committee when it recommended this change. However, since this rule was initially recommended, the Committee has indicated that additional options may be considered and recommended in the future if appropriate rationale and justification are presented and evaluated.
Regarding the comment concerning the bunch size tolerance, it is acknowledged that one failing container may cause the entire lot to be out of grade. However, it should be noted that the tolerance allows 20 percent of the weight of the container to contain bunches of grapes smaller than one-quarter pound, but consisting of at least five berries. This is an allowance, not a requirement. Handlers are not required to use any clusters smaller than one-quarter pound to fill the containers. The relaxed tolerance merely provides handlers with the option and flexibility to utilize the smaller clusters to fill out the clamshell corners. Handlers choosing to utilize this practice should be able to fill the container's corners and fall within the 20 percent tolerance.
Regarding the comment concerning different standards for grapes in the market at the same time, the marketing order only regulates grapes grown in Southeastern California. Thus, the order's regulations have no control over grapes from other areas. This rule is not intended to affect the overall quality of grapes in the marketplace. There is only one marketing order for table grapes. It is intended to allow Southeastern California grape handlers to meet the needs of their customers. Furthermore, industry experience following the previous revision for 2-pound clamshell containers, which is similar to this change, has been positive.
In response to the comment that notification of the November 5, 2013, meeting had not been received, it should be noted that the Committee routinely announces all upcoming meetings at least 3 days before they occur. These announcements are issued to all growers and handlers in the production area. Further, the commenter acknowledged awareness of the open comment period as published in the March 3, 2015,
Another commenter who opposed the rule believes that this partial relaxation will allow inferior grapes to be packed and is a visual misrepresentation to both the retailer and the consumer.
This action was recommended by the Committee in response to customer complaints about the empty corners of the larger clamshells. While the tolerance for bunch size will be increased for grapes packed in clamshells containers weighing five pounds or less, all other requirements of U.S. No. 1 Table, as set forth in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Table Grapes, will still apply. Thus, the increased tolerance is not expected to affect the overall quality of the grapes in the marketplace. The change is intended to provide the industry with increased flexibility to meet customers' needs.
The last commenter suggested that the math in calculating the acceptable tolerance of the one-quarter pound bunch minimum requirement for 5-pound clamshell containers is incorrect and offered various other weight combinations to meet the 5-pound weight requirement of an individual container. He also asserted that the current minimum bunch size requirement for U.S. No. 1 Table Grade grapes is 1.25 pounds. Finally, this commenter claimed that quality will be sacrificed by allowing 20 percent of the 5-pound containers to consist of loose grapes. These assertions are incorrect. The rationale for this rule is not based on a mathematical calculation of grape bunch sizes that could be used to fill containers. The rationale is to allow use of bunches smaller than one-quarter pound but consisting of at least five berries to properly fill the corners of the square containers. Furthermore, the assertion that the bunch size requirement for U.S. No. 1 Table Grade grapes is 1.25 pounds is not accurate. The bunch size requirement for U.S. No. 1 Table Grade grapes is one-quarter pound. This rule provides for up to 20 percent of the weight of clamshell containers to contain grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but the clusters must consist of at least five berries each.
Finally, this rule does not allow 20 percent of the 5-pound container to consist of loose grapes. Loose grapes are not permitted by this relaxation. The 20 percent tolerance is given to limit the number of bunches weighing less than one-quarter pound and each must still contain at least five attached berries. As previously stated, this change is not expected to affect the overall quality of grapes in the marketplace as all of the other requirements of U.S. No. 1 Table grade, as set forth in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Table Grapes, will still apply.
A similar requirement has been in place under the marketing order since 2010 for clamshell containers weighing two pounds or less, and the industry has received positive responses from customers. Since that time, the popularity of clamshell containers has increased, and larger sized clamshell containers are now being used for packaging grapes due to customer's demands.
This action simply applies the same requirements to larger clamshell containers, as desired by customers.
Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based on the comments received.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this rule.
Grapes, Marketing agreements, Reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 925 and 944 are amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
(a)
(1) U.S. No. 1 Table, as set forth in the United States Standards for Grades of Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type 7 CFR 51.880 through 51.914), with the exception of the tolerance percentage for bunch size when packed in individual consumer clamshell packages weighing 5 pounds or less: Provided that not more than 20 percent of the weight of such containers may consist of single clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each; or
(2) U.S. No. 1 Institutional, with the exception of the tolerance percentage for bunch size. Such tolerance shall be 33 percent instead of 4 percent as is required to meet U.S. No. 1 Institutional grade. Grapes meeting these quality requirements may be marked “DGAC No. 1 Institutional” but shall not be marked “Institutional Pack.”
(a)(1) Pursuant to section 8e of the Act and Part 944—Fruits, Import Regulations, and except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section, the importation into the United States of any variety of Vinifera species table grapes, except Emperor, Calmeria, Almeria, and Ribier varieties, is prohibited unless such grapes meet the minimum grade and size requirements established in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) U.S. No. 1 Table, as set forth in the United States Standards for Grades of Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type 7 CFR 51.880 through 51.914), with the exception of the tolerance percentage for bunch size when packed in individual consumer clamshell packages weighing 5 pounds or less: not more than 20 percent of the weight of such containers may consist of single clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each; or
(ii) U.S. No. 1 Institutional, with the exception of the tolerance percentage for bunch size. Such tolerance shall be 33 percent instead of 4 percent as is required to meet U.S. No. 1 Institutional grade. Grapes meeting these quality requirements may be marked “DGAC No. 1 Institutional” but shall not be marked “Institutional Pack.”
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim rule with request for comments.
This rule implements a recommendation from the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board) to revise the exemption provisions under the marketing order for tart cherries grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin (order). The Board locally administers the order and is comprised of growers and handlers operating within the production area. This rule changes the number of years that new market development and market expansion projects are eligible for handler diversion credit from one year to three years. This rule also revises the composition of the subcommittee which
Effective November 6, 2015; comments received by January 4, 2016 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet:
Jennie M. Varela, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3775, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 930, as amended (7 CFR part 930), regulating the handling of tart cherries grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule revises the exemption provisions prescribed under the order. This rule expands the availability of diversion credits for new market development and market expansion activities from one year to three years. This rule also revises the composition of the subcommittee which reviews exemption requests. These changes are intended to encourage the use of new market developments and market expansion activities to facilitate sales and to help ensure impartiality during the review process. These changes were unanimously recommended by the Board at its meeting on June 25, 2015.
Section 930.59 of the order authorizes handler diversion. When volume regulation is in effect, handlers may fulfill any restricted percentage requirement in full or in part by acquiring diversion certificates or by voluntarily diverting cherries or cherry products in a program approved by the Board, rather than placing cherries in an inventory reserve.
Section 930.159 of the order's administrative rules specifies methods of handler diversion, including using cherries or cherry products for exempt purposes prescribed under § 930.162. Section 930.162 establishes the terms and conditions of exemption that must be satisfied for handlers to receive diversion certificates for exempt uses. Section 930.162(b) defines the activities which qualify for exemptions under new market development and market expansion and the period for which they are eligible for diversion credit. New market development and market expansion activities include, but are not limited to, sales of cherries into markets that are not yet commercially established, product line extensions, or segmentation of markets along geographic or other definable characteristics.
Section 930.162(d) establishes a Board-appointed subcommittee to review the applications for exemption or renewal of exemption and to either approve or deny the exemption. This section currently specifies that the subcommittee consist of three members, including the Board manager, or a Board member acting in the manager's stead, the public member, and one industry person who is not on the Board.
The order provides for the use of volume regulation to stabilize prices and improve grower returns during periods of oversupply. At the beginning of each season, the Board examines production and sales data to determine whether a volume regulation is necessary and if so, announces free and restricted percentages to limit the volume of tart cherries on the market. Free percentage cherries can be used to supply any available market, including domestic markets for pie filling, water packed, and frozen tart cherries. Restricted percentage cherries can be placed in reserve, or be used to earn diversion credits as prescribed in §§ 930.159 and 930.162 of the order's administrative rules. These activities include, in part, the development of new products, new market development and market expansion, the development of export markets, and charitable contributions.
In 2012, the Board made a series of changes to the volume control provisions to facilitate the marketing of tart cherries and to help lower restrictions during seasons when volume control is implemented. One of these changes was to decrease the number of years that new market development and market expansion projects are eligible for handler diversion credit from three years to one year. The Board thought this decrease would continue to encourage new market development and market expansion projects, while reducing the impact these credits had on volume restriction calculations. At that time, these sales were not included in the average sales figure used to determine optimum supply for volume regulation. The Board anticipated the change would shift more volume to sales helping to reduce the calculated surplus and lower the restricted percentage.
In revisiting this change, the Board recognized that the underlying rationale for having reduced the duration of
Further, since making this change, participation in new market development and market expansion activities has dropped dramatically. In years prior to changing from three years to one year, applications for new market activities numbered around 20 to 25 a season. For the 2014-15 season, the first season with volume regulation since the change, applications dropped to eight. Handlers stated that it was not worth the time and effort to develop one of these projects if the benefit was only for a single year. It was reported that the shortened time frame did not allow handlers to recoup the resources needed to establish one of these projects.
The Board affirmed its support for new market development and market expansion diversion credit programs. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to change the exemption provisions applicable to handler diversion activities by increasing the number of years that new market development and market expansion activities are eligible for diversion credit back to three years. The Board also noted that projects approved for the 2014-15 season would be allowed to continue and be subject to the new three-year cycle.
This action also revises the composition of the subcommittee appointed to review exemption applications. The subcommittee was formed to assist Board staff members in reviewing and granting exemptions. The subcommittee reviews applications to use restricted cherries for activities related to new product development, new market development and market expansion, the development of export markets, and for experimental purposes. Current rule provisions (§ 930.162(d))state that the subcommittee consists of the manager of the Board or a Board member acting in their stead, the public member, and one industry member who is not on the Board. The Board recommended changing the composition of the subcommittee to help ensure impartiality so that no one affiliated with a handler was part of the review process.
Consequently, the Board recommended revising the subcommittee to consist of three members all of whom are not affiliated with a handler, but have industry knowledge. One of these members shall be the public member or the alternate public member, if available to serve. The subcommittee will also include a similarly qualified alternate should one of the other members be unable to serve.
The Board made several other recommendations for changes to the regulations under the order at its June 25, 2015 meeting. However, these changes will be considered under a separate action.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 600 producers of tart cherries in the regulated area and approximately 40 handlers of tart cherries who are subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms have been defined as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service and Board data, the average annual grower price for tart cherries during the 2013-14 season was $0.35 per pound, and total shipments were around 289 million pounds. Therefore, average receipts for tart cherry producers were around $168,600, well below the SBA threshold for small producers. In 2014, The Food Institute estimated an f.o.b. price of $0.96 per pound for frozen tart cherries, which make up the majority of processed tart cherries. Using this data, average annual handler receipts were about $6.9 million, which is also below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers and handlers of tart cherries may be classified as small entities.
This rule revises § 930.162 of the regulations regarding exemptions by changing the number of years that new market development and market expansion projects are eligible for handler diversion credit from one year to three years. This rule also revises the composition of the subcommittee which reviews exemption requests. These changes are intended to encourage the use of new market development and market expansion activities to facilitate sales and to help ensure impartiality during the review process. The authority for these actions is provided in § 930.59 of the order. These changes were unanimously recommended by the Board at its meeting on June 25, 2015.
It is not anticipated that this action will impose additional costs on handlers or growers, regardless of size. Rather, this should help handlers receive better returns on their new market development and market expansion projects by providing additional time for the handlers to receive diversion credit for those activities. This should provide more opportunity for them to recoup the time and resources required to establish these projects. In addition, changing the number of years that these projects are eligible for diversion credits may provide additional incentive for handlers to develop these programs, and may facilitate additional sales which could improve returns for growers and handlers. Further, the Board does not believe that this change significantly impacts the calculations for free and restricted percentages.
The change in composition of the subcommittee is administrative in nature, and not expected to result in any additional costs.
This rule is expected to benefit the industry. The effects of this rule are not expected to be disproportionately greater or less for small handlers or producers than for larger entities.
The Board discussed alternatives to these changes, including not changing the number of years that new market development and market expansion projects were eligible for diversion credit. The Board agreed that increasing the number of years that new market development and market expansion projects were eligible for diversion credit from one year to three years provides handlers with more incentive
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0177, (Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin). No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
Accordingly, this rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tart cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
The Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry and all interested persons were invited to attend and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 25, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on these issues. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
This rule invites comments on changes to the exemption requirements currently prescribed under the order. Any comments received will be considered prior to the finalization of this rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Board's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tart cherries.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
(b) * * *
(2) * * * In addition, shipments of tart cherries or tart cherry products in new market development and market expansion outlets are eligible for handler diversion credit for a period of three years from the handler's first date of shipment into such outlets.
(d)
Farm Credit Administration.
Final rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, our or Agency) issues a final rule amending our regulations in order to reflect internal organization changes. Another amendment updates a statutory citation for the Farm Credit Act.
This regulation shall become effective no earlier than 30 days after publication in the
The objective of this final rule is to reflect changes to the FCA's organization and identification of those FCA employees responsible for various functions. The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, requires, in part, that each Federal agency publish in the
We revise the regulations by:
(1) In § 600.1, adding a citation for the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246, June 18, 2008, (section 5401-5407), which revised the statutory citation for the Act.
(2) In § 600.4:
(a) Including the Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Office of Information Technology, Designated Agency Ethics Official, and Equal Employment Opportunity and Inclusion in FCA's organizational structure and a description of their functions; and
(b) Amending the responsibilities of the Office of Management Services to remove the function of administering FCA's information resources management program;
(3) In § 606.670, removing from paragraph (i) the words “Director, Equal Employment Opportunity” and adding in their place the words “Equal Employment Opportunity and Inclusion Director”.
We have determined that the amendments involve Agency management and personnel and other minor technical changes.
Therefore, the amendments do not constitute a rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551, 553(a)(2). Under the APA, the public may participate in the promulgation of rules that have a substantial impact on the public. The amendments to our regulations relate to Agency management and personnel and a minor technical change only and have no direct impact on the public and, therefore, do not require public participation.
Even if these amendments were a rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 551, 553(a)(2) of the APA, we have determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and (B) of the APA, an agency may publish regulations in final form when they involve matters of agency organization or where the agency for good cause finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As discussed above, this amendment results from recent office reorganizations. Because the amendments will provide accurate and current information on the organization of the FCA and update the citation to the Act, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay amending the regulations.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity, Federal buildings and facilities, Individuals with disabilities.
As stated in the preamble, parts 600 and 606 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
Secs. 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.17, 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2241, 2242, 2243, 2244, 2245, 2252, 2279aa-11).
The Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181 recodified and replaced the prior laws under which the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) and the institutions of the Farm Credit System (System or FCS) were organized and operated. The prior laws, which were repealed and superseded by the Act, are identified in section 5.40(a) of the Act. Subsequent amendments to the Act and enactment dates are as follows: Public Law 94-184, December 31, 1975; Public Law 95-443, October 10, 1978; Public Law 96-592, December 24, 1980; Public Law 99-190, December 19, 1985; Public Law 99-198, December 23, 1985; Public Law 99-205, December 23, 1985; Public Law 99-509, October 21, 1986; Public Law 100-233, January 6, 1988; Public Law 100-399, August 17, 1988; Public Law 100-460, October 1, 1988; Public Law 101-73, August 9, 1989; Public Law 101-220, December 12, 1989; Public Law 101-624, November 28, 1990; Public Law 102-237, December 13, 1991; Public Law 102-552, October 28, 1992; Public Law 103-376, October 19, 1994; Public Law 104-105, February 10, 1996; Public Law 104-316, October 19, 1996; Public Law 107-171, May 13, 2002; Public Law 110-246, June 18, 2008. The law is codified at 12 U.S.C. 2000,
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(b)
(1) In writing at FCA, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090;
(2) By email at
(3) By telephone at (703) 883-4056.
29 U.S.C. 794.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of spoiler and elevator computer (SEC) latent failures; an undetected loss of a SEC in flight will result in loss in redundancy for elevator control. This AD requires revising the After Start Normal Procedures section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide procedures that will address this loss of redundancy. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to address loss of redundancy of SEC 1 and SEC 2. A SEC failure, in conjunction with a loss of trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) electrical control due to jamming or rupture, could result in failure of an elevator and aileron computer, and consequent loss of elevator control and reduced control of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective November 20, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 20, 2015.
We must receive comments on this AD by December 21, 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 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.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0191, dated September 22, 2015 (correction September 25, 2015) (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
With the introduction of new Spoiler and Elevator Computer (SEC) hardware C Part Number (P/N) B372CAM0100 with software standards 122, 124 and 125 (identified by P/N B372CAM0101, P/N B372CAM0102 and P/N B372CAM0103, respectively), some airlines have reported receiving maintenance messages,
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an undetected loss of redundancy during flight if an affected SEC cannot control the related elevator servo control(s), possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
It was determined that, to recover full redundancy, a reset of SEC 1 and SEC 2 must be done after engines start and Airbus have developed an Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Temporary Revision (TR), published as TR 572 Issue 1.1, to provide the necessary flight crew procedure.
Required actions include revising the After Start Normal Procedures section of the AFM to provide procedures that will address this loss of redundancy. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR572, Issue 1.0, dated August 13, 2015, to the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airplane Flight Manual. The service information describes the reset of SEC 1 and SEC 2 that must be done after engines start. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a SEC failure in conjunction with a loss of THS electrical control due to jamming or rupture, could result in failure of an elevator and aileron computer, and consequent loss of elevator control and reduced control of the airplane. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 959 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $81,515, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective November 20, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, 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 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of spoiler and elevator computer (SEC) latent failures; an undetected loss of a SEC in flight will result in loss in redundancy for elevator control. This AD requires revising the After Start Normal Procedures section of the airplane fight manual (AFM) to provide procedures that will address this loss of redundancy. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to address loss of redundancy of SEC 1 and SEC 2. A SEC failure, in conjunction with a loss of trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) electrical control due to jamming or rupture, could result in failure of an elevator and aileron computer, and consequent loss of elevator control and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes equipped with SEC hardware C part number (P/N) B372CAM0100 with software standard 122 (P/N B372CAM0101), 124 (P/N B372CAM0102), or 125 (P/N B372CAM0103), on SEC position 1 or 2, or both: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the After Start Normal Procedures section of the AFM to include the statement specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD, or Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR572, Issue 1.0, dated August 13, 2015, to the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airplane Flight Manual, into the applicable AFM.
When a statement identical to that in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD has been included in the After Start Normal Procedures section of the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD or Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR572, Issue 1.0, dated August 13, 2015, may be removed from the AFM.
Airbus Operations Engineering Bulletin OEB-50 provides additional information on the subject addressed by this AD.
Modification of an airplane by installation of SEC hardware C with software standard 126 (P/N B372CAM0104) (Airbus Modification 161208) allows removal of the AFM revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane.
For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, do not install SEC hardware C P/N B372CAM0100 with software standard 122 (P/N B372CAM0101), 124 (P/N B372CAM0102), or 125 (P/N B372CAM0103), on SEC position 1 or 2, or both, on any airplane, unless the AFM of the airplane is revised concurrently with that installation, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0191, dated September 22, 2015 (corrected September 25, 2015), for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR572, Issue 1.0, dated August 13, 2015, to the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airplane Flight Manual.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the circumferential fuselage splice at fuselage-station (FS) 695 is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires an inspection for corrosion and previous repairs, severed stringers, cracking, and loose or distressed fasteners of the forward and aft ends of the stringer splices of certain stringers, inspection for cracking and modification of certain fastener holes common to the stringer and splice member at the forward and aft ends of the splice, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of residual strength of the circumferential fuselage splice at FS 695, which could lead to rapid decompression of the cabin and potential loss of the airplane.
This AD is effective December 10, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 10, 2015.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; phone: 770-494-5444; fax: 770-494-5445; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5605; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 30391, May 28, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 30391, May 28, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 30391, May 28, 2015).
We reviewed Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014. This service bulletin describes procedures for doing the following actions:
• A general visual inspection (GVI) for corrosion and previous repairs, severed stringers, cracking, and loose or distressed fasteners of the forward and aft ends of the stringer splices of stringers 1-7 and 66-72, and corrective actions if necessary.
• At stringers 1-7 and 66-72, removing the four rivets common to the stringer and splice member at the forward and aft ends of the splice and doing a bolt hole eddy current (BHEC) inspection or an equivalent inspection procedure for cracking in each of the fastener holes, and corrective actions if necessary.
• Corrective actions for cracked holes include reaming to the maximum permissible hole diameter of the next larger size rivet. If a crack indication remains after reaming, this service information specifies repairing the cracked stringer.
• If a severed stringer is found during the GVI, doing related investigative actions of an eddy current surface scan inspection for cracking of the fuselage skin at the skin-to-stringer attachments immediately forward and aft of the stringer break and confirming skin cracks with a dye penetrant inspection. Corrective actions include repairing the severed stringer or skin cracks.
• For holes without crack indications, other specified actions include modifying the fastener holes by reaming to a certain maximum permissible hole diameter of the same size rivet and installing replacement fasteners; or if the original hole is larger than the maximum permissible diameter, installing the next rivet size and type.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, 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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 10, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188A and 188C airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 1001 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the circumferential fuselage splice at fuselage-station (FS) 695 is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of residual strength of the circumferential fuselage splice at FS 695, which could lead to rapid decompression of the cabin and potential loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before the accumulation of 38,200 total flight hours or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a general visual inspection for corrosion and previous repairs, severed stringers, cracking, and loose or distressed fasteners of the forward and aft ends of the stringer splices of stringers 1-7 and 66-72; remove the four rivets common to the stringer and splice member at the forward and aft ends of the splice and do a bolt hole eddy current inspection or an equivalent inspection procedure for cracking in each of the fastener holes; modify the fastener holes; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions and other specified actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014, except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions and other specified actions before further flight. If any repairs exceed the repair limits specified in Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any corrosion or previous repair is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any loose or distressed fastener is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Although Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014,
(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5605; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Lockheed service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; phone: 770-494-5444; fax: 770-494-5445; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a cracked upper cardan in the main landing gear (MLG). This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to reduce the life limits for the MLG upper cardan for certain installations. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the upper cardan in the MLG, which could result in MLG collapse and subsequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
This AD becomes effective December 10, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 10, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
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
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 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0141, dated June 4, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During an A320-200 77T main landing gear (MLG) fatigue test by Messier Bugatti-Dowty (MBD), an upper cardan was found with a crack, emanating from the grease hole/main lug intersection. The affected upper cardan, Part Number (P/N) 201163620, is listed in the applicable Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1 with a demonstrated fatigue life of 60,000 landings.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to MLG upper cardan failure, possibly resulting in MLG collapse and subsequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
Prompted by these findings and further to analysis, it has been decided to reduce the life limit for certain installations of the P/N 201163620 MLG upper cardan.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires implementation of the new life limits, as applicable, and replacement of any affected MLG upper cardan units that have already exceeded the reduced limit.
The reduced life limits for the affected MLG upper cardan are expected to be incorporated in a next revision of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 11964, March 5, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (80 FR
We agree with the commenter's request. In consideration of the average utilization rate of affected U.S. operators, the practical aspects of an orderly modification of the U.S. fleet during regular maintenance periods, and the availability of required modification parts, we have determined that a 3 month initial compliance time is appropriate for replacing the MLG upper cardan. We have changed paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly.
Lufthansa Technik requested that the part number for the next higher assembly of MLG cardan part number (P/N) 201163620 be referenced in the NPRM (80 FR 11964, March 5, 2015). The commenter stated that the NPRM and corresponding EASA AD 2014-0141, dated June 4, 2014, reference P/N 201163620, but that part number is not identified in the aircraft illustrated parts catalog (AIPC). The commenter is concerned that if operators only look in the AIPC to see if P/N 201163620 is identified, and it is not there, they may falsely think that their airplanes would not be affected by the NPRM.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. Although MLG cardan P/N 201163620 is not included in the AIPC, it is identified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, which is part of the approved type design for these airplanes. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.
In paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (NPRM (80 FR 11964, March 5, 2015), we referred to applicable life limits in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of the proposed AD. For airplanes other than those identified paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of the proposed AD, the life limit is in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011, as specified in paragraph (h)(5) of this AD. In addition, if a part is transferred between airplanes, operators must adjust the life limit using the method specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011, as specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. We have clarified paragraph (j) of this AD by also referring to paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(5) of this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 11964, March 5, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 11964, March 5, 2015).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011. This document provides revised instructions and life limits for airworthiness limitations items. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $72,335, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective December 10, 2015.
For airplanes with configurations specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD: Paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the life limit specified in paragraph (n)(1) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), for airplanes having a main landing gear (MLG) upper cardan part number (P/N) 201163620.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by a cracked upper cardan in the main landing gear (MLG). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the upper cardan in the MLG, which could result in MLG collapse and subsequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes having a MLG upper cardan part number (P/N) 201163620: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the applicable life limits for the MLG upper cardan P/N 201163620 specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD and the life limit clarifications specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. The initial compliance time for replacing the MLG upper cardan is prior to the applicable life limit specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing this revision terminates the life limit required by paragraph (n)(1) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), for the MLG upper cardan P/N 201163620 for that airplane only.
(1) For Airbus Model A319 series airplanes, pre-Airbus Modification 26644, excluding corporate jets post-Airbus Modification 28238, 28162, and 28342: The life limit is 50,590 total flight cycles.
(2) For Airbus Model A319 series airplanes, post-Airbus Modification 26644, excluding corporate jets post-Airbus Modification 28238, 28162, and 28342: The life limit is 56,480 total flight cycles.
(3) For Airbus Model A320 series airplanes pre-Airbus Modification 26644 having weight variant (WV) WV011, WV012, WV016, or WV018: The life limit is 50,590 total flight cycles.
(4) For Airbus Model A320 series airplanes post-Airbus Modification 26644, having WV011, WV012, WV016, or WV018: The life limit is 56,480 total flight cycles.
(5) For Airbus Model A320 series airplanes post-Airbus Modification 26644, having WV015 or WV017: The life limit is 42,140 total flight cycles.
(1) The life limits specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD are total flight cycles accumulated by the MLG since first installation on an airplane.
(2) The life limits specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD are applicable only for the airplane model, configuration and WV specified in those paragraphs.
(3) If a part is transferred between airplanes having a different life limit for the MLG unit, adjust the life limit using the method specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011.
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011, is already required by paragraph (n) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015).
(4) A MLG unit on which Airbus Modification 26644 is installed is also known as “enhanced” landing gear and is identified as P/N 201582xxx Leg and Dressing Series. A MLG unit that does not have Airbus Modification 26644 installed is identified as P/N 201375xxx Leg and Dressing Series. (The xxx designation is a placeholder for numbers).
(5) For airplanes with configurations not specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, the life limit for the MLG unit is specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011.
After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
As of the effective date of this AD, a MLG upper cardan having P/N 201163620 may be installed on an airplane, provided the part life has not exceeded the applicable life limit specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, and paragraph (h)(5) of this AD, and is replaced with a serviceable part prior to exceeding the applicable life limit specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, and paragraph (h)(5) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0141, dated June 4, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,
(ii) Reserved.
(3) 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
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of missing plugs found prior to airplane delivery, during manufacturing inspections, at various locations in certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments. This AD requires drilling a hole and installing and bonding plugs in certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing or misaligned plugs which, in the event of a fire, could cause an increased rate of loss of Halon in the lower cargo compartments, and result in the inability to extinguish a fire and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
This AD is effective December 10, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 10, 2015.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6596; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.
United Airlines stated that it concurs with the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014), and agrees that the detection and correction of the missing or misaligned plugs will maintain a higher level of safety.
All Nippon Airways (ANA) asked that we delay issuance of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014) until Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014 (referred to as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the specified actions), can be revised. ANA noted that the service information specifies using a stringer plug removal/installation tool, having tool number (T/N) MIT140Z4372-3; however, this tool does not work well for doing the actions. ANA provided the following reasons to substantiate its request:
• For the instructions specified in Task 1 of this service information, the connecting tube on the tool (T/N 140Z4372-8/-15) interferes with the fasteners at the section 41/43 joint; therefore, the tool cannot be inserted into the stringers. The connecting tube needs to be shortened in length and trimmed to taper.
• For the instructions specified in Task 3 of the service information, the tool (T/N 140Z4372-3) cannot be inserted at stringers 30R through 35R, adjacent to the cargo door, because it won't bend at the location adjacent to the stringer end and frame.
• For the instructions specified in Task 3 of the service information, the tool (T/N 140Z4372-3) is inserted into the stringer from station (STA) 1593 to
• The tool (T/N 140Z4372-3) has a head piece (T/N 140Z4372-4/-5) and a push rod (T/N 140Z4372-6/-14) with a retaining pin hole. However, the retaining pin is not centered on the push rod and head piece, so the head piece detaches from the push rod during the plug removal/installation, and it takes an extraordinary amount of time to remove the head piece from the stringer. The retaining pin should be centered on the push rod and head piece in order to alleviate these issues.
Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. This service information provides clarification to the instructions, which addresses the commenter's concerns. In addition, the stringer plug removal/installation tool, having T/N MIT140Z4372-3, has been redesigned and retains the same part number. We have revised paragraphs (c) and (g) of this AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. We have also added new paragraph (h) to this AD to give credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014.
ANA asked that we allow using an alternate stringer plug removal/installation tool, fabricated by ANA, and include the tool in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014, when the service information is revised. ANA added that, due to the issues previously identified, it has been using this alternate stringer plug removal/installation tool to remove existing plugs and install new plugs, with concurrence from Boeing.
We acknowledge the commenter's request to allow its fabricated tool to be included in the service information instructions. However, as noted previously, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015, has been issued; and the stringer plug removal/installation tool, having T/N MIT140Z4372-3, has been redesigned and retains the same part number. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
ANA asked that we add certain instructions to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014. ANA provided the following reasons to substantiate its request:
• For the instructions specified in Task 1, steps 2 and 3, of the service information, it specifies drilling a hole on stringers S-34L and S-35L. Removal of the environmental control system (ECS) cargo air insulated riser duct is necessary to ensure workspace for drilling at S-34L and S-35L. ANA asked that these removal and installation instructions be added when the service information is revised.
• For the instructions specified in Task 2, step 3, of the service information, it specifies bonding new plugs in the stringers; however, the stringer and duct installed at the aft face of STA 825 frame web are adjacent to the stringer, so it is not possible to apply a resin through the moisture vent hole. Additionally, the tie-up for supporting the duct should be cut and removed. ANA asked that instructions be added to cut the tie-up and move the duct if the access conditions identified in the service information are insufficient.
Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. This service information provides clarification to the instructions identified, which addresses the commenter's concerns. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
ANA also stated that each task in the service information necessitates confirmation that using a Sharpie marker, or similar, to mark the centerline of the top surface of the new plug to help locate the plug at the position of a stringer vent hole is permitted. However, ANA found that the plug had rotated to 90 degrees; but the centerline of the top surface of the new plug was at the position of a stringer vent hole. ANA asked that instructions be added to the service information specifying that after plug installation operators should verify the new plug location is correct with a mirror or borescope.
We acknowledge the commenter's concerns. Boeing has incorporated instructions into Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015, which allow the use of a mirror or borescope to check the proper positioning of a plug before applying the bond. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
ANA also stated that the instructions specified in Task 1, Note 9, of the service information, specify using a 3-step drill process. The first step is to drill a new pilot hole of
We agree that alternative methods may be allowed for drilling the hole specified in Task 1, Note 9, because the intent of the 3-step drill process is to effectively ream each hole to its final diameter. Boeing has incorporated instructions allowing additional drill steps outside of the 3-step drill process in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Boeing asked that we clarify the reason for the unsafe condition identified in the
Boeing also asked that we clarify the description of the unsafe condition identified in the
In addition, Boeing asked that we delete “the cause was determined to be miscalculated pressure exposures during design” and “could result in missing or misaligned bonded plugs which” from the Discussion section of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014). Boeing stated that there is no data showing the cause of the plugs to disengage was miscalculated pressure exposures.
We acknowledge the commenter's concerns and provide the following. We agree that the word “bonded” should be removed from the language in the
In addition, we acknowledge the commenter's request that the cause of disengagement of the plugs is incorrect and should be removed from the Discussion section of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014). We agree that there is no data showing the cause of the plugs to disengage was miscalculated pressure exposures; this issue stems from high pressure exposures associated with flight testing pressure profiles through pressurization checks during production. However, the Discussion section of the of the NPRM is not restated in this final rule; therefore, we have not changed this final rule in regard to the language in that section.
Boeing asked that we include detailed rework instructions in the actions required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014). Boeing noted that the following language should be added before the first sentence: “Ensure all 80 stringer plugs are installed, and apply adhesive to them to ensure they cannot become dislodged or misaligned. At 2 locations, this will require rework beyond a nominal application of adhesive to the stringer plug. The rework at the unique locations will involve the following. . . .”
We acknowledge the commenter's concern; however, the rework instructions are described in detail in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. Since this AD requires accomplishing the actions in accordance with this service information, there is no need to describe those instructions in detail in paragraph (g) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Boeing asked that we extend the compliance time for the bonded plug installation from 12 to 24 months. Boeing stated that a conservative recalculation of the Boeing risk analysis due to the condition being resolved in production, and based on a static fleet size of 88 airplanes, resulted in a control program time of 66 months. Boeing added that a service bulletin compliance time of 24 months will allow sufficient time for operator planning, scheduling, and accomplishment of the retrofit within the risk-based control program time.
We do not agree to extend the compliance time to 24 months. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of doing the bonded plug installation within an interval of time that corresponds to the typical scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators. Under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously—and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. The service information describes procedures for drilling a hole and installing and bonding plugs in certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
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
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 10, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of missing plugs found prior to airplane delivery, during manufacturing inspections, at various locations in certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing or misaligned plugs which, in the event of a fire, could cause an increased rate of loss of Halon in the lower cargo compartments, and result in the inability to extinguish a fire and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Drill a hole in stringers S-34L and S-35L, remove the plugs, and install and bond new plugs in the lower lobe cargo compartments, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6596; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA, to accommodate standard instrument approach procedures for the airport. The geographic coordinates of the satellite airports also would be adjusted for Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace as well as noting a name change for Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, February 4, 2016. 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) 203-4500.
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 Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA.
On August 19, 2015, the FAA published in the
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 and 6002, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and 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 amends Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA. A review of the airspace revealed additional Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace necessary to support instrument arrival procedures at the airport. Class D airspace extends upward from the surface to but not including 3,000 feet within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, CA, formerly Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, Los Angeles, CA. Class E surface area airspace extends upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, CA, formerly Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, Los Angeles, CA. The geographic coordinates for Bob Hope Airport and Whiteman Airport are adjusted to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical data base.
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. 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 1050.1F, “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 to but not including 3,000 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport, excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, CA. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport, excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, CA.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, correction.
This action corrects an error in a final rule published in the
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.
Jim Pharmakis, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5855.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Department of Commerce's (Department) Privacy Act regulations under the Privacy Act. The revisions add a new Privacy Act System of Records, entitled “COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System,” to the General and Specific exemptions sections of the Department's Privacy Act regulations. The Privacy Act requires agencies to identify records exempted from a provision of the General and/or Specific exemptions sections of the Act. This document helps the Department comply with this requirement.
These amendments are effective December 7, 2015.
Michael J. Toland, Department Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, Office of Privacy and Open Government, 1401 Constitution Ave.NW., Room 52010, Washington, DC 20230.
On May 8, 2015, the Department of Commerce published a proposed rule revising its existing regulations at 15 CFR part 4 under the FOIA and Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
Interested persons were afforded the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process through submission of written comments to the proposed rule during the 30-day open comment period. On June 29, 2015, the
The Department received one public submission in response to the proposed rulemaking, which was similar or identical in some cases to the ones submitted by the commenter for the new Privacy Act System of Records: “COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System.” In particular, the commenter suggested that the “proposed changes [to this rule] are expressly intended to exempt the Department's proposed new system of records entitled `COMMERCE/DEPARTMENT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System,' set forth in 80 FR 26534, published May 8, 2015, from most provisions of the Privacy Act.” The commenter also indicated that the Department provided insufficient business justification for this system of records. The commenter further submitted the view that the routine uses listed in this notice may result in matching programs as described in 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(8), adding that if the Department engages in any matching program, it must follow matching program requirements outlined in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o).
The Department would like to thank the commenter for submitting comments in response to the proposed rulemaking. While due consideration has been given to the comments received, since they were similar or identical to those received for the proposed Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled: “COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System,” and the comments did not address any substantive changes to this proposed rule, the Department will not address the comments in this notice. Instead, responses to the commenter's comments can be found under the Public Comments and Responses section of the final notice for COMMERCE/DEPT-25.
With this action, the Department's Privacy Act regulations are revised regarding applicable exemptions to reflect new Department wide systems of records notices published since the last time the regulations were updated. Specifially, the revisions of the Privacy Act regulations in subpart B of part 4 incorporate changes to the language of the regulations in the following provisions: § 4.33 (General exemptions); and § 4.34 (Specific exemptions).
It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
Freedom of information, Privacy.
For reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Commerce amends 15 CFR part 4 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 3717; 41 U.S.C. 3101; Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1950.
(b) * * *
(4)
(a)(1) Certain systems of records under the Act that are maintained by the Department may occasionally contain material subject to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), relating to national defense and foreign policy materials. The systems of records published in the
(b) The specific exemptions determined to be necessary and proper with respect to systems of records maintained by the Department, including the parts of each system to be exempted, the provisions of the Act from which they are exempted, and the justification for the exemption, are as follows:
(1) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). The systems of records exempt hereunder appear in paragraph (a) of this section. The claims for exemption of COMMERCE/DEPT-12, COMMERCE/BIS-1, COMMERCE/NOAA-5, and COMMERCE/DEPT-25 under this paragraph are subject to the condition that the general exemption claimed in § 4.33(b) is held to be invalid.
(2)(i) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). The systems of records exempt (some only conditionally), the sections of the Act from which exempted, and the reasons therefor are as follows:
(C) Fisheries Law Enforcement Case Files—COMMERCE/NOAA-5, but only on condition that the general exemption claimed in § 4.33(b)(2) is held to be invalid;
(F) Access Control and Identity Management System—COMMERCE/DEPT-25, but only on condition that the general exemption claimed in § 4.33(b)(4) is held to be invalid;
(4)(i) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5). The systems of records exempt (some only conditionally), the sections of the Act from which exempted, and the reasons therefor are as follows:
(A) Applications to U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA)—COMMERCE/MA-1;
(B) USMMA Midshipman Medical Files—COMMERCE/MA-17;
(C) USMMA Midshipman Personnel Files—COMMERCE/MA-18;
(D) USMMA Non-Appropriated Fund Employees—COMMERCE/MA-19;
(E) Applicants for the NOAA Corps—COMMERCE/NOAA-1;
(F) Commissioned Officer Official Personnel Folders—COMMERCE/NOAA-3;
(G) Conflict of Interest Records, Appointed Officials—COMMERCE/DEPT-3;
(H) Investigative and Inspection Records—COMMERCE/DEPT-12, but only on condition that the general exemption claimed in § 4.33(b)(3) is held to be invalid;
(I) Investigative Records—Persons within the Investigative Jurisdiction of the Department COMMERCE/DEPT-13;
(J) Litigation, Claims, and Administrative Proceeding Records—COMMERCE/DEPT-14; and
(K) Access Control and Identity Management System—COMMERCE/DEPT-25, but only on condition that the general exemption claimed in § 4.33(b)(4) is held to be invalid.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the High Street Drawbridge across the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, mile 6.0, at Alameda, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to replace the center span lock. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from November 5, 2015 through 6:30 p.m. on November 25, 2015. For the purpose of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 2:30 p.m. on October 21, 2015 until November 5, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0962] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email
Alameda County Public Works Agency has requested a temporary change to the operation of the High Street Drawbridge, mile 6.0, over Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, at Alameda, CA. The bridge provides a vertical clearance of 16 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The bridge currently operates under 33 CFR 117.181. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The bridge will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position, October 26, 2015 through November 25, 2015, Monday through Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., due to replacement of the center span lock. During nights and weekends, the bridge will be able to open upon 2 hours advance notice with single leaf openings. During working hours a 15-foot wide scaffold at mid-channel will reduced vertical clearance by 9 feet. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is an alternate route for shallow draft vessels through San Leandro Bay. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway by our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so they can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway drawbridge across the Cerritos Channel, mile 4.9, at Long Beach, CA. During the deviation electrical power will be disconnected from the bridge to allow removal of the bridge from the waterway. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during its removal.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from November 5, 2015 through 6 p.m. on November 25,
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0963] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email
California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway drawbridge, mile 4.9, over Cerritos Channel, at Long Beach, CA. The bridge will provide a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position until October 26, 2015. After October 26, 2015, the bridge and falsework will provide a vertical clearance of 5 feet above Mean High Water until the bridge and falsework are removed completely from the waterway. The bridge currently operates as required by 33 CFR 117.147(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The bridge will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. on October 12 to 6 p.m. on November 25, 2015 while the bridge is removed from the waterway. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and Los Angeles Harbor can be used as an alternate route for vessels. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway by our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so they can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
The bridge will be removed from the waterway and 33 CFR 117.147(a) will be revised accordingly. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones around the POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER, two vessels associated with Royal Dutch Shell's (Shell) Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations, as well as any vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those vessels, while they are located in the U.S. Territorial and Internal Waters of the Sector Puget Sound Captain of the Port Zone. The safety zones created by this rule are necessary to ensure the mutual safety of all waterways users including the specified vessels and those individuals that may desire to exercise their First Amendment rights relating to Shell's Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations.
This rule is effective without actual notice from November 5, 2015 through December 31, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, October 23, 2015, through November 5, 2015.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Kate Haseley, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone (206) 217-6051, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable as the vessels at issue will be arriving in late October and a safety zone is needed at that time to help ensure the safety of all waterway users.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish limited access areas is: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER are Shell contracted vessels that are returning to the Puget Sound region as a part of demobilizing from oil drilling and exploration operations in the Arctic over the spring and summer of 2015. In the spring of 2015 a significant amount of First Amendment activity related to Shell's arctic activities took place in both Washington and Oregon and such activity may occur again when the vessels are in the Puget Sound. The previous First Amendment activity included the unauthorized boarding of a Shell contracted vessel on the high seas by Greenpeace members, the formation of a “kayak flotilla” in the Puget Sound to advocate against Shell's operations in the region including an attempt to block POLAR PIONEER from leaving Seattle, Washington, and the use of a “kayak flotilla” as well as Greenpeace members hanging from a bridge in Portland, Oregon to prevent another Shell contracted vessel from departing. Draft
In this rule, the Coast Guard is establishing safety zones around the Shell contracted vessels POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER, as well as any vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those vessels. The safety zones are established in subsection (a) of this temporary regulation. Per subsection (a)(1), while transiting, the safety zone around each of the vessels will encompass all waters within 500 yards of the vessels in all directions from those vessels and any other vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those vessels. Persons and/or vessels that desire to enter these safety zones must request permission to do so from the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound by contacting the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-6001, or the on-scene Law Enforcement patrol craft, if any, via VHF-FM CH 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a significant regulatory action as the safety zones are limited in both size and duration and any person and/or vessel needing to transit through the safety zones may be allowed to do so with the permission of the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the affected waterways when the safety zones are in effect. The safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, however, because the safety zones are limited in both size and duration and any person and/or vessel needing to transit through the safety zones may be allowed to do so with the permission of the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of temporary safety zones to deal with an emergency situation that
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of all individuals and supports the ability to congregate and exercise First Amendment free speech rights safely and without interfering with other maritime traffic. Of particular note, large vessels operating in restricted waters cannot maneuver freely, nor can they stop immediately. As such, any First Amendment activity taking place in immediate proximity to such vessels can quickly result in extremis. Individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights are asked to do so with full regard to vessel traffic conditions and are requested to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(2)
(b)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a direct final rule amending its regulation that governs VA services that are not subject to copayment requirements for inpatient hospital care or outpatient medical care. Specifically, the regulation is amended to exempt mental health peer support services from having any required copayment. VA received no adverse comments concerning the direct final rule or its companion substantially identical proposed rule published in the
Kristin J. Cunningham, Director Business Policy, Chief Business Office (10NB6), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 382-2508. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In a direct final rule published in the
Under the direct final rule procedures that were described in 79 FR 70938 and 79 FR 70941, the direct final rule became effective on January 27, 2015, because no adverse comments were received within the comment period. In a companion document in this issue of the
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on October 26, 2015, for publication.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve changes to the Tennessee state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on behalf of the Knox County Department of Air Quality Management (County Department), on March 14, 2014, and May 14, 2015, that require certain sources in Knox County, Tennessee, to report actual emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
This direct final rule is effective January 4, 2016 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 7, 2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0456 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached at (404) 562-9088 or via email at
On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated revised 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) of 0.075 parts per million (ppm).
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS, based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. EPA designated Blount and Knox Counties in Tennessee as a nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Knoxville Area” or “Area”) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2008-2010 ambient air quality data.
Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between NO
The Knox County Air Pollution Control Board (County Board) adopted a new regulation, Knox County Air Quality Management Regulation Section 26.5.C—
The March 14, 2014, and May 14, 2015, submittals seek to add Knox County Air Quality Management Regulation Section 26.5.C to the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP. EPA initially approved Knox County Air Quality Management Regulation Section 26.5—
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 Knox County Air Quality Management Regulation Section 26.0 entitled “
EPA is approving the portion of the March 14, 2014, SIP submittal containing the version of Section 26.5.C adopted by the County Board on October 16, 2013, and the May 14, 2015, SIP submittal containing the revisions to Section 26.5.C adopted by the County Board on January 21, 2015. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on January 4, 2016 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 4, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of revisions to the Louisiana New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. These revisions are updates to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) permit programs.
This rule is effective on December 7, 2015.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0131. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Stephanie Kordzi, 214-665-7520,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our August 19, 2015, proposal (80 FR 50240). In that document, we proposed to approve portions of SIP submittals for the State of Louisiana. These amendments provide clarity to the SIP-approved rules and correct contradictory language. Specific proposed revisions address the assessment and validation of a facility's emissions inventory values. Further, the amendments revise the SIP rules to conform to the latest changes to Louisiana laws including making changes to the Louisiana NNSR and PSD permitting programs reflecting the requirements found in the federal NSR Reform Program SIP rules. The changes also define, for NNSR purposes, the parishes that have been designated as non-attainment for ozone. Finally, this action addresses eight rule changes for baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions definitions. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Act. We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal.
We are approving portions of SIP submittals for the State of Louisiana submitted on July 25, 1997, June 22, 1998, February 2, 2000, January 27, 2003, June 15, 2005, December 20, 2005, May 5, 2006, July 20, 2007, November 9, 2007, August 14, 2009, May 16, 2011, and February 27, 2013, to address air permit procedure revisions, ERC banking revisions, Baton Rouge Severe Area rule update revisions, NSR reform revisions, rescission of the alternative emission reduction plan for Union Carbide Corporation Taft Plant, revisions for Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM
• Revisions to LAC 33:III.501 as submitted on July 25, 1997;
• Revisions to LAC 33:III.504 as submitted on June 15, 2005; December 20, 2005; May 5, 2006; November 9, 2007; August 14, 2009; and May 16, 2011;
• Revisions to LAC 33:III.509 as submitted on July 25, 1997; June 22, 1998; January 27, 2003; February 2, 2000; December 20, 2005; May 5, 2006; November 9, 2007; May 16, 2011; and February 27, 2013;
• Revisions to LAC 33:III.603 as submitted on February 2, 2000; and August 14, 2009;
• Revisions to LAC 33:III.605 as submitted on August 14, 2009;
• Revisions to LAC 33:III.607 as submitted on November 9, 2007 and August 14, 2009;
• Revisions to LAC 33:III.613 as submitted on January 27, 2003 and May 5, 2006;
• Revisions to LAC 33:III.615 as submitted on January 27, 2003 and August 14, 2009; and
• The removal of the Union Carbide Bubble Permit in Hahnville, Louisiana, as submitted on July 20, 2007, at 40 CFR 52.970(d) to reflect the rescission of the permit by LDEQ.
The EPA is finding that the May 16, 2011, revisions to the Louisiana NNSR program at LAC 33:III.504 address all required NNSR elements for the implementation of the 1997 and 2006 PM
This action is being taken under section 110 of the Act.
In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Final Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 4, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed 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, and Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve portions of the November 2, 2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) for inclusion into the North Carolina SIP. This final action pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure” SIP. NCDAQ certified that the North Carolina SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in North Carolina. With the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting, interstate transport requirements, and state boards requirements, EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission provided to EPA on November 2, 2012, as satisfying the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
This rule is effective December 7, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0795. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Ward can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9140 or via electronic mail at
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. For additional information on the infrastructure SIP requirements, see the proposed rulemaking published on March 13, 2015. (80 FR 13312)
On March 13, 2015, EPA proposed to approve portions of North Carolina's November 2, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the state board requirements of 110(E)(ii).
EPA received one set of comments on the March 13, 2015, proposed rulemaking to approve portions of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission intended to meet the CAA requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.
As an initial matter, the Commenter included interpretations of section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA in a background section, but this section did not include comments specific to EPA's March 13, 2015 proposed action on the North Carolina infrastructure SIP submittal. EPA provided an analysis of these same interpretations of section 110(a)(2)(A) in an October 16, 2014, rulemaking regarding the infrastructure SIP of Maryland for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. (
Comment 1: The Commenter contends that North Carolina's infrastructure submission “fails to include stringent enough emission limits and other restrictions on sources of ozone precursors, like nitrogen oxides (“NO
Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that NC DAQ's 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submission is not approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because it fails to include enforceable emission limitations sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in attainment areas. In light of the structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for each individual area of the state.
EPA's interpretation that infrastructure SIPs are more general planning SIPs is consistent with the statute as understood in light of its history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not include provisions requiring states and EPA to label areas as attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include all areas of the state in “air quality control regions” (AQCRs) and section 110 set forth the core substantive planning provisions for these AQCRs. At that time, Congress anticipated that states would be able to address air pollution quickly pursuant to the very general planning provisions in section 110 and could bring all areas into compliance with the NAAQS within five years. Moreover, at that time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the section 110 plan provide for “attainment” of the NAAQS and section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must include “emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].” In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time, Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA to identify whether areas of the state were violating the NAAQS (
As stated in EPA's proposed approval for this rule, to meet section 110(a)(2)(A), North Carolina submitted a list of existing emission reduction and other control measures in the SIP that control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NO
Comment 2: The Commenter contends that recent monitoring of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in areas not designated nonattainment confirms that North Carolina's existing emission limitations are insufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The Commenter specifically contends that the exceedances of the ozone NAAQS with 2010-2012 data, in areas [Forsyth and Guilford counties] not designated nonattainment under the standard demonstrate that North Carolina's existing emissions limitations cannot ensure attainment and maintenance of the eight-hour ozone standard.
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that NCDAQ's 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submission is not approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because of the monitor design values noted by the Commenter. While EPA shares the Commenter's concern regarding any county monitoring violations of the NAAQS, such concerns are outside the scope of what is germane to an evaluation of section 110(a)(2)(A) for an infrastructure SIP submission. With regard to the 2010-2012 design values for Forsyth and Guilford Counties as mentioned by the Commenter, Forsyth and Guilford Counties attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with 2011-2013 data and continue to attain with preliminary 2013-2015 data.
Regardless, EPA does not believe that this 2010-2012 monitoring data referenced by the Commenter provides an appropriate basis upon which to disapprove North Carolina's infrastructure SIP as it relates to section 110(a)(2)(A) requirements. Pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(A), an infrastructure SIP submission must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. The Commenter, however, seems to believe that in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, section 110(a)(2)(A) requires the state to submit control measures sufficient to demonstrate attainment in an area designated attainment but that has a recent monitored violation of the NAAQS. EPA does not believe that this is a reasonable interpretation of the provision with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions. Rather, EPA believes that the proper inquiry at this juncture is whether the state has met the basic structural SIP requirements appropriate at the point in time EPA is acting upon it. The CAA provides states with three years to develop infrastructure SIPs and states cannot reasonably be expected to address the annual change in an area's design value for each year over that period, nor to predict the air quality data in periods after development and submission of the SIPs.
Further, the Act provides states and EPA with other tools to address concerns that arise with respect to violations of the NAAQS in a designated attainment area, such as the authority to redesignate areas pursuant to section 107(d)(3), the authority to issue a “SIP Call” pursuant to section 110(k)(5), or the general authority to approve SIP revisions that can address such violations of the NAAQS through other appropriate measures. As described above, EPA believes that North Carolina's infrastructure submission is sufficient because it appropriately addresses the structural SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) by including enforceable emission control measures and the authority to adopt and implement additional measures, if needed.
Comment 3: The Commenter contends that North Carolina's infrastructure SIP must ensure that proper mass limitations and short term averaging periods are imposed on certain specific large sources of NO
Response 3: EPA appreciates the commenter's support of North Carolina's pursuit of additional NO
Furthermore, we disagree with the commenter's contention that EPA cannot approve an infrastructure SIP submission without ensuring that it contains emission limits applicable at all times, including during periods of SSM. For the reasons stated in the proposal, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP is necessarily the appropriate type of action to address this type of deficiency.
Comment 4: The Commenter contends that, to comply with section 110(a) and avoid additional nonattainment designations for areas impacted by ozone levels above the standard, “EPA must disapprove North Carolina's infrastructure SIP to ensure that large sources of NO
Response 4: EPA disagrees that it must disapprove North Carolina's submittal to ensure that large sources of NO
Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(H), the State must demonstrate in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has the authority to revise of its SIP, including as needed to address any finding by EPA that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS. To satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(H), North Carolina's submittal cites to statutory authority that allows the state to adopt standards and plans to implement the requirements of the CAA and Federal implementing regulations, and to specifically establish lower emissions limits if needed to attain or maintain the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the CAA provides appropriate tools to address changes in air quality over time and North Carolina's submittal also appropriately addresses the elements needed to address any changes in air quality over time.
Comment 5: The Commenter contends that ozone concentrations will be exacerbated by ongoing climate change and that North Carolina's existing emission limits are not stringent enough to adequately protect the public from the dangers posed by exposure to elevated ozone concentrations. The Commenter contends that this underscores the need for North Carolina to impose tighter emission limits if it hopes to attain and maintain the current NAAQS for ozone in areas not currently designated nonattainment.
Response 5: EPA agrees that climate change is a serious environmental issue; however, for the reasons provided in the previous responses, we disagree that states are required to anticipate and plan for possible future nonattainment within each area of the state as part of the infrastructure SIP.
We note that given the potential wide-ranging impacts of climate change on air quality planning, EPA is developing climate adaptation implementation plans to assess the key vulnerabilities to our programs (including how climate change might affect attainment of national ambient air quality standards) and to identify priority actions to minimize these vulnerabilities. With respect to climate impacts on future ozone levels, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has identified as a priority action the need to adjust air quality modeling tools and guidance as necessary to account for climate-driven changes in meteorological conditions and meteorologically-dependent emissions. These efforts are just beginning.
Additionally, as previously stated regarding tighter emission limits, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs that reflect the first step in their planning for attaining and maintaining a new or revised NAAQS and that they contain enforceable control measures and a demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority to develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. As explained above, to the extent that climate change or any other factor exacerbates air quality in the future, the CAA provides the appropriate tools to assess and address these conditions.
In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve the portions of North Carolina's infrastructure submission as demonstrating that the State meets the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD permitting provisions in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the state board requirements of section 110(E)(ii).
With the exceptions described above, EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's November 2, 2012, infrastructure SIP submission because it addresses the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. NCDAQ has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in North Carolina.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 January 4, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is determining that a portion of an October 26, 2010, action was in error and is making a correction pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act. The October 26, 2010, EPA action approved various revisions to Ohio regulations in the EPA approved state implementation plan (SIP). The revisions were intended to consolidate air quality standards into a new chapter of rules and to adjust the cross references accordingly in various related Ohio rules. These changes included a specific revision to the cross reference in the Ohio rule pertaining to methods for measurements for comparison with the particulate matter air quality standards. This final correction action removes any misperception that EPA approved any revision to the pertinent rule other than the revised cross reference. This action will therefore assure that the codification of the October 26, 2010, action is in accord with the actual substance of the action.
This final rule is effective on December 7, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0807. All documents in the docket are listed on the
John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067,
This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On June 4, 2003, Ohio submitted a variety of revisions to the EPA approved version of Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-17 in the state's SIP, which regulates particulate matter and opacity from affected sources. While EPA subsequently approved many of these revisions, EPA published action on June 27, 2005, proposing to disapprove specific submitted revisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B) that in EPA's view relaxed existing SIP opacity limitations without an adequate analysis under section 110(l) or section 193 of the Clean Air Act.
On September 10, 2009, for purposes of consolidating its existing SIP rules identifying applicable air quality standards, and to adjust the cross references between rules accordingly, Ohio submitted additional revisions to several of its existing rules to EPA for approval into the SIP. Most notably, these rule revisions included a modification to the existing cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A), which was necessary because the ambient particulate matter measurement method identified in this paragraph was for purposes of assessing attainment with the ambient air quality standards now located in OAC 3745-25-02, rather than in OAC 3745-17-02.
On October 26, 2010, at 75 FR 65572, EPA published a direct final action approving the relevant revisions in the September 10, 2009, submission. In the preamble and in the codification of the October 26, 2010, action, EPA erroneously listed the approved SIP revisions as including the entirety of OAC 3745-17-03, rather than specifying more precisely that the approval as it pertained to OAC 3745-17-03 applied only to the revised cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). This error left the misimpression that EPA had approved other significant substantive revisions in OAC 3745-17-03, including those in OAC 3745-17-03(B) that EPA had previously proposed to disapprove. The codification in the October 26, 2010, action with respect to OAC 3745-17-03 should have been explicitly limited to OAC 3745-17-03(A), to reflect the EPA approval of only the revised cross reference.
EPA subsequently recognized that the codification erroneously left the misimpression that it had approved more of OAC 3745-17-03 than the revision of the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). On April 3, 2013, at 78 FR 19990, EPA published action to correct the error. EPA took this action pursuant to its general rulemaking authority under Administrative Procedures Act section 553. Two parties challenged EPA's April 3, 2013, action, and one of these parties also filed a petition for reconsideration of that action, objecting that EPA failed to correct the error in the October 26, 2010, action in accordance with the procedures of section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA responded to the petition for reconsideration by agreeing to take this action pursuant to section 110(k)(6), as requested by the petitioner. Accordingly, EPA published proposed rulemaking on February 7, 2014, using its authority under section 110(k)(6) to correct errors in its rulemaking of October 26, 2010.
EPA's February 7, 2014, proposal provides an extensive description of the error in its October 26, 2010, rulemaking, provided in subsections entitled, “What was the error in description and codification?”, “What precipitated this error?”, and “Why was it evident that this was an error?” It is not necessary to repeat that detailed explanation here. EPA proposed to correct the error to remove any misimpression in its October 26, 2010,
EPA intended to correct the error in the October 26, 2010, action first and then separately to complete the action to address the merits of the substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 in the June 4, 2003, SIP submission that were the subject of the June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval. To this end, EPA published a supplemental proposal on June 26, 2014, reopening comment on its prior proposed disapproval of revisions to OAC 3745-17-03.
Accordingly, since the provisions is withdrawn, EPA does not need to complete action on the June 4, 2003, SIP submission. Significantly, this also confirms that the submitted substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 are not part of the EPA approved SIP and that the EPA's October 26, 2010, action could not have revised those elements of the existing version of OAC 3745-17-03 in the SIP, inadvertently or otherwise. Except for an amendment to the cross reference to ambient air quality standards in OAC 3745-17-03(A) (which EPA approved on October 26, 2010), the version of OAC 3745-17-03 in the SIP remains the version effective in the state on January 31, 1998, approved by EPA on October 16, 2007.
EPA received comments on its proposed error correction from three parties: (i) The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA); (ii) the Ohio Utility Group; and (iii) a group including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Manufacturers Association, and Ohio Chemistry Technology Council (Chamber
In addition to being outside the scope of this error correction action, EPA notes that the commenter's arguments also support EPA's conclusion that the October 26, 2010, action was in error to the extent that it appeared to approve any revision beyond the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). The commenter explicitly acknowledged that EPA previously received significant comments concerning the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B), in particular comments that in the commenter's view warrant reversal of EPA's prior proposed disapproval. Furthermore, the commenter in effect argued that EPA has not adequately considered these comments. This is fully consistent with EPA's own observation that its October 26, 2010, rulemaking provided no
Finally, EPA acknowledges the commenter's request that that EPA complete its consideration of comments on the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B), but such consideration is outside the scope of this rulemaking. By separate action, EPA intended to address the merits of the substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 in the June 4, 2003, SIP submission that were the subject of the June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval. To this end, EPA published a supplemental proposal on June 26, 2014, reopening comment on its prior proposed disapproval of certain substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03.
As explained in the February 17, 2014, proposal for this action, EPA is focusing this section 110(k)(6) rulemaking on the specific error that occurred in the October 26, 2010, action. EPA provided extensive discussion and explanation of the error that occurred in the October 26, 2010, action and why EPA could not be considered to have acted on any revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 that were outside the scope of that rulemaking. EPA explained the significance of OAC 3745-17-03(B) in the February 17, 2014, proposal as a means of explaining why EPA considered it important to correct the errors in its October 26, 2010, rulemaking. EPA noted in passing that it had already proposed to disapprove certain provisions for reasons that were already a matter of public record in the
The commenter appears to agree that the revisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B) that it advocated for EPA to approve are significant and substantive. EPA statements regarding the significance of the error, however, cannot be considered to constitute final review of the merits of the erroneously addressed provisions. The October 26, 2010, action clearly did not address the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B), and EPA's action proposing to correct an error related to these provisions did not address the merits of these provisions either.
The commenter disagreed in particular with EPA's characterization of OAC 3745-17-03(B) in the February 17, 2014, proposal as allowing significantly more opacity during certain periods. A more precise statement would have been that EPA had proposed to disapprove the pertinent revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B) in the June 27, 2005, proposal based in significant part on the view that the revisions would allow significantly more opacity during certain periods. The commenter, along with several other commenters, has disputed EPA's proposed views regarding the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B). As explained in detail in the February 17, 2014, proposal for this error correction, however, EPA did not intend, and could not have intended, to address the substantive merits of those revisions in the October 26, 2010, action. Indeed, with Ohio's withdrawal of its request for rulemaking on these provisions, EPA will no longer be conducting final rulemaking on the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B). Nevertheless, the more relevant point is that the existence of these disputes as to the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B) illustrates the importance of correcting any errors that might create the misimpression that EPA had completed its review of these issues. EPA believes that the significance of the provisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B) and the outstanding questions regarding whether those provisions could have been approved consistent with CAA requirements provide added value to correcting any misimpressions regarding the status of those provisions, namely misimpressions reasserted in these comments that EPA had already completed rulemaking on these provisions.
Contrary to the commenter's statement, EPA's proposed rulemaking to correct the errors in its October 26, 2010, action was not based on a technical argument regarding the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B), including any technical argument as to whether these provisions allow significantly more opacity during certain periods. This assertion regarding whether the now withdrawn revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 would allow more opacity (made in EPA's 2005 proposed rulemaking addressing the merits of Ohio's now withdrawn SIP revision and contested by various commenters) illustrates the significance of the error in the October 26, 2010, action. However, the commenter provided no reason why characterization of the issue as significant and identification of any of the unresolved issues that were not addressed in the October 26, 2010, rulemaking (or elsewhere) should preclude EPA from assuring that the
EPA and the commenters appear to agree on the fact that the revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B) that EPA proposed to disapprove are important substantive provisions. In EPA's view, the importance of these provisions makes it necessary for EPA to clarify the fact that the October 26, 2010, rulemaking did not make any substantive revision to these provisions, and EPA cannot be considered to have lawfully acted on the revisions provisions without considering the comments for and against its June 27, 2005, proposal to disapprove them. Regardless of whether the error was “trivial” or not, EPA has concluded that the error warrants correction pursuant the authority of section 110(k)(6) (or under authorities that EPA is not using in this action).
The commenters' substantive arguments regarding the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B) are not germane here, because they are not relevant to determining whether the codification contained in EPA's October 26, 2010, action was an erroneous description of that rulemaking action. The only issue in this action is EPA's correction of the error. Moreover, now that the state has withdrawn the submission seeking substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B), these comments are moot.
In any case, the commenter has now had the opportunity to comment on the very issue that it speculated it would have commented on under the 2010 conditions it hypothesized. The proposed rulemaking for this error correction action proposed to find that rulemaking on portions of OAC 3745-17-03 other than OAC 3745-17-03(A) in the 2010 air quality standards rulemaking would have been outside the scope of that rulemaking. Thus, EPA solicited comment on precisely the issue that the commenter speculated it would have commented on in its hypothesized 2010 circumstances,
Finally, EPA notes that the commenter did in fact comment, to urge approval of revisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B), without contesting EPA's view that these provisions are outside the scope of the relevant state submission and EPA's rulemaking thereon. As explained in the proposal for this action, those revisions were not at issue in its October 26, 2010, rulemaking and are not at issue in this error correction. EPA regrets the inconvenience to all parties that arose from the error in its October 26, 2010, rulemaking. However, the point here is that it is unnecessary to speculate on how the commenter would have commented on the October 26, 2010, rulemaking had that rulemaking more clearly stated that the only revision to OAC 3745-17-03 under consideration was the revision to the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). The commenter has now had the opportunity to comment on the applicable issues, and EPA is addressing its comments here.
EPA's proposed rulemaking provides extensive discussion of why EPA believes that the codification in its October 26, 2010, action was in error, including multiple reasons that demonstrate that EPA did not intend and could not have intended to approve provisions in OAC 3745-17-03 that were beyond the stated purpose of Ohio's submission, which with respect to OAC 3745-17-03 was only to revise the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). Conspicuously absent from the commenter's comments is any specific argument contesting EPA's rationale for this error correction, be it to question EPA's interpretation of Ohio's September 10, 2009, submission, to dispute that EPA did not intend and could not have intended to take action on OAC 3745-17-03(B), or to challenge EPA's assertion that in any case there has been no legally valid action on OAC 3745-17-03(B) because EPA has not addressed pertinent comments on its prior proposed disapproval of that separate revision (including comments that the commenter itself attests to making).
Similarly, the commenter mischaracterized EPA's proposed error action, asserting that EPA is hereby removing an approval of portions of OAC 3745-17-03 that, it asserted, EPA approved in the October 26, 2010, action. The proposed rulemaking explained at length that EPA cannot have approved any portion of 3745-17-03 in 2010 other than the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A), and so the action EPA proposed clarifies the approved SIP without changing the substance of what has actually been approved. Again, the commenter provided no rationale for adopting its views as to the nature of EPA's proposed action rather than the views EPA proposed.
The commenter raised several objections to these EPA statements. The commenter asserted that the scenario EPA discussed in the June 2005 proposed disapproval, intended as an example case in which the revised version of OAC 3745-17-03(B) “allow[s] excess opacity on occasions that excess opacity is currently prohibited,” to reflect an unlikely pattern of operation that would not be expected to be identified as a violation using the reference method (Method 9) of the unrevised rule. “In summary, the alternative of continuous instrumental monitoring of in-stack opacity in lieu of periodic Method 9 visible emission observations may be `significant and substantive' in terms of imposing more stringent performance obligations, but it certainly [is] not a `significant and substantive' relaxation of the performance obligation where Method 9 is the SIP reference test for opacity.”
Because Ohio has withdrawn its June 2003 submission, however, EPA will be conducting no further rulemaking on that submission. Therefore, it is no longer germane to any ongoing rulemaking whether Ohio's June 2003 submission would have tightened or relaxed the stringency of Ohio's existing SIP. In any case, the desirability of clarifying the status of OAC 3745-17-03(B) is not contingent on any final judgment regarding the effect of previously submitted revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B) on allowable opacity. In its February 7, 2014, proposal, EPA sought merely to explain why the error in its October 26, 2010, final rule warranted correction. Comments from the Ohio Utilities Group discussed above suggest that the provisions of OAC 3745-17-03(B), and the associated relaxation of requirements, are too important to be the subject of an error correction. These comments from the Chamber
Pursuant to section 110(k)(6), EPA is determining that its October 26, 2010, rulemaking was in error to the extent
On April 3, 2013, EPA used its authority under section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act to amend the erroneous codification in its October 26, 2010, rulemaking without notice and comment rulemaking. In that rulemaking, EPA corrected the erroneous statements and the misleading codification to reflect more clearly that EPA had only approved the one narrow revision requested by the state in OAC 3745-17-03,
Ordinarily, a rulemaking establishing a corrected codification would include not just a preamble but would also include a codification section, in which the Office of the Federal Register is instructed to amend the applicable sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. However, this action involves circumstances in which the pertinent section of the Code of Federal Regulations already correctly reflects the EPA approved version of OAC 3745-17-03, as a result of action taken April 3, 2013. Conceptually, this action replaces the pertinent revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations promulgated on April 3, 2013, with identical revisions pursuant to this action. In practical terms, the net effect of this action is no change in the Code of Federal Regulations. It is inappropriate to provide a null set of instructions, to instruct the Office of the Federal Register to make no changes to the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, this action includes no instructions to the Office of the Federal Register, no requested revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations, and indeed no codification section. As a result, the Office of the Federal Register's records will show the pertinent revisions as being made April 3, 2013. Nevertheless, this action should be viewed as replacing those corrections, promulgated under the authority of Administrative Procedures Act section 553, with identical corrections, promulgated under the authority of Clean Air Action section 110(k)(6).
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. This action merely corrects an error in EPA's prior action and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 4, 2016. 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Final rule.
This final rule provides procedures for the disposition of unclaimed human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony excavated or discovered on, and removed from, Federal lands after November 16, 1990. It implements section 3(b) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
The rule is effective December 7, 2015.
Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 354-2204, email
The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is responsible for implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA or Act) (25 U.S.C. 3001
• Civil penalties (68 FR 16354, April 3, 2003);
• Future applicability (72 FR 13189, March 21, 2007); and
• Disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains (75 FR 12378, March 15, 2010).
Section 3(b) of the Act (25 U.S.C. 3002 (b)) explicitly directs the Secretary to publish regulations for the disposition of unclaimed cultural items excavated or discovered on, and removed from, Federal lands after November 16, 1990. When we published the NAGPRA regulations on December 4, 1995, we reserved 43 CFR 10.7 for this purpose.
This rule is limited to Federal lands, as NAGPRA provides that ownership or control of any cultural item excavated or discovered on, and removed from, tribal land after November 16, 1990, is in either a known lineal descendant (for human remains and associated funerary objects) or in the Indian tribe from whose tribal land the cultural items were removed, and does not require the lineal descendant or the Indian tribe to make a claim for the cultural items.
Consultation regarding a proposed rule for § 10.7 began in 2005. On three separate occasions, we consulted with representatives of Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, and scientific organizations. We also consulted with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Review Committee) during its scheduled meetings in Albuquerque, NM (November 2005); Washington, DC (April 2007); Phoenix, AZ (October 2007); and Washington, DC (November 2010).
We published a proposed rule on October 29, 2013 (78 FR 64436). Public comment was invited for a 60-day period, ending December 30, 2013. The proposed rule also was posted on the National Park Service's National NAGPRA Program Web site. The Review Committee commented on the record on the proposed rule at a public meeting on November 6, 2013.
During the comment period, we received 27 written comments on the proposed rule, contained in 20 separate submissions from 5 Indian tribes, 1 Indian organization, 1 non-federally recognized Indian group, 1 Native Hawaiian organization, 1 museum, 1 scientific organization, 3 Federal entities, 6 individual members of the public, and 1 anonymous commenter. All relevant comments on the proposed rule were considered during the final rulemaking.
For example, under the definition at § 10.2 (h)(2)(ii), if a Federal agency:
In this example, a list submitted on January 18, 2019, of all unclaimed cultural items that met the definition during calendar year 2018 would satisfy the requirements of this final rule.
Alternately, under the definition at § 10.2 (h)(2)(i), if a Federal agency:
In this example, a list submitted on January 17, 2020, of all unclaimed cultural items that met the definition during calendar year 2019 would satisfy the requirements of this final rule.
Based on the preceding comments and responses, the drafters have made the following changes to the proposed rule language:
• § 10.2(g)(5)(iv). This section specifies that disposition of unclaimed cultural items is established under § 10.7 of these regulations.
• § 10.2(h)(2)(i). This section specifies that cultural items are unclaimed under the following circumstances: The Federal agency publishes a notice of intended disposition, and the agency has not received any claim from an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, or any response from a lineal descendant to the notice within one year of publishing the notice.
• § 10.2(h)(2)(ii). This section specifies that cultural items are unclaimed under the following circumstances: The Federal agency knows, or has reason to know, that cultural items have been excavated or discovered on, and removed from Federal lands; for two years, the Federal agency has tried to reasonably identify any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, or a lineal descendant, as a potential claimant, and at the end of the two-year period, the Federal agency cannot reasonably identify an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, or a lineal descendant, as a potential claimant.
• § 10.7(a) of the proposed rule has been renumbered § 10.7(b) in this final rule.
• § 10.7(a)(1) has been renumbered § 10.7(b)(1) in this final rule. This section specifies that the list of unclaimed cultural items must include a summary of consultation efforts under § 10.5, and adjusts the deadline for submitting a list of unclaimed cultural items. For those cultural items that meet the definition of unclaimed cultural items on the effective date of the regulation, a list of items must be submitted within one year. For items that meet the definition of unclaimed cultural items after the effective date of the regulation, a list of items must be submitted within one year of the cultural items becoming unclaimed.
• § 10.7(a)(3) has been renumbered § 10.7(b)(3) in this final rule. This section specifies that the potential claimants who are referenced are the potential claimants listed in a notice of intended disposition.
• § 10.7(b) of the proposed rule has been renumbered § 10.7(c) in this final rule. This section specifically identifies the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization to which control may be transferred under this rule as an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that does not have a potential claim to the cultural items. Also, this section specifies that such transfer is conditioned on the transferee agreeing to accept transfer and treat the cultural items according to the transferee's own laws and customs.
• § 10.7(c) of the proposed rule has been renumbered § 10.7(d) in this final rule. This section specifies that, under this rule, any reinterment of unclaimed human remains or funerary objects by the Federal agency must be according to applicable interment laws. Also, the provision in the proposed rule regarding the offer of human remains or funerary objects for disposition according to State or other law has been eliminated.
• § 10.7(d) of the proposed rule has been renumbered § 10.7(e) in this final rule.
• § 10.7(d)(3) has been renumbered § 10.7(e)(3) in this final rule. This section specifies that the Manager of the National NAGPRA Program will post information received from the Federal agency under § 10.7(e)(2) of this rule, on the National NAGPRA Program's Web site.
• § 10.7(e) has been renumbered § 10.7(a) in this final rule.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local or tribal government agencies, or geographic regions.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments, or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required. No taking of property will occur as a result of this rule.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. In accordance with the Presidential Memorandum entitled “Government to Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, April 29, 1994); Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); the President's Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on the Implementation of Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 5, 2009); and the Secretary of the Interior's Order No. 3317—Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation With Indian Tribes (Dec. 1, 2011); we have evaluated this rule and determined that it has a potential effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. The rule was developed in consultation with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, which includes members nominated by Indian tribes and traditional religious leaders. Formal consultation with the Review Committee was held on November 16-17, 2005, in Albuquerque, NM; on April 19-20, 2007, in Washington, DC; on October 15-16, 2007, in Phoenix, AZ; on May 15-16, 2008, in De Pere, WI; on October 30-31, 2009, in Sarasota, FL; and on November 18-19, 2010, in Washington, DC. Also, the Review Committee had an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule following publication, which it did at a public meeting on November 6, 2013, in Mt. Pleasant, MI.
Formal consultation with Indian tribes began on November 15, 2005, in Albuquerque, NM, and continued on April 18, 2007, in Washington, DC, and on October 14, 2007, in Phoenix, AZ. We have fully considered tribal and Review Committee comments in the final rule.
The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in 43 CFR part 10 and assigned OMB Control Number 1024-0144. This rule does not contain any new information collections that require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion under 43 CFR 46.210(i): “Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines: That are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.” We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A statement of Energy Effects is not required.
The proposed rule and this final rule were prepared by staff of the National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service; Office of Regulations and Special Park Uses, National Park Service; and Office of the Solicitor, Division of Parks and Wildlife and Division of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.
Administrative practice and procedure, Hawaiian Natives, Historic preservation, Indians-claims, Indians-lands, Museums, Penalties, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Department amends 43 CFR part 10 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 470dd; 25 U.S.C. 9, 3001
(g) * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) Disposition of unclaimed human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony is governed by § 10.7.
(h)
(1) That have been excavated or discovered on, and removed from, Federal lands after November 16, 1990, and
(2) Whose disposition under 25 U.S.C. 3002(a) and § 10.6 of this part has not occurred because either:
(i) Within one year after publication of a notice under § 10.6(c) of this part,
(ii) Within two years after knowing or having reason to know that cultural items were excavated or discovered, and removed, the appropriate Federal agency could not reasonably identify any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization or lineal descendant as a potential claimant.
(a) This section carries out section 3(b) of the Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(b)) regarding unclaimed cultural items.
(b) A Federal agency that has unclaimed cultural items (human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony) must:
(1) Submit a list of the items to the Manager, National NAGPRA Program that describes the general place of discovery or excavation, and removal; the nature of the unclaimed cultural items; and a summary of consultation efforts under § 10.5 of this part. This list must be received by December 5, 2016, or within 1 year after the cultural items have become unclaimed under § 10.2(h), whichever is later;
(2) Care for and manage unclaimed cultural items consistent with the regulations at 36 CFR part 79; and
(3) To the maximum extent feasible, consider and respect the traditions of any potential claimants listed in a notice under § 10.6(c) concerning the unclaimed cultural items, including, but not limited to, traditions regarding housing, maintenance, and preservation.
(c) Subject to paragraph (e) of this section, a Federal agency that has unclaimed cultural items may, upon request, transfer them to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that is not a potential claimant and agrees:
(1) To accept transfer; and
(2) To treat them according to the laws and customs of the transferee.
(d) Subject to paragraph (e) of this section, a Federal agency that has unclaimed human remains or funerary objects may reinter them according to applicable interment laws.
(e) Before a Federal agency makes a transfer or reinterment under paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section, it must:
(1) Submit the list required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section to the Manager, National NAGPRA Program; and
(2) Publish a notice of the proposed transfer or reinterment in a newspaper of general circulation in the area in which the unclaimed cultural items were excavated or discovered, and removed, and, if applicable, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area in which each potential claimant now resides.
(i) The notice must explain the nature of the unclaimed cultural items, summarize consultation efforts under § 10.5, and solicit claims under the priority of ownership or control in section 3(a) of the Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(a)) and § 10.6.
(ii) The notice must be published at least two times at least a week apart.
(iii) The transfer or reinterment may not take place until at least 30 days after publication of the second notice to allow time for any claimants under the priority of ownership or control in section 3(a) of the Act and § 10.6 to come forward.
(3) Send to the Manager, National NAGPRA Program a copy of the notice published under paragraph (d)(2) of this section and information on when and in what newspaper(s) the notice was published. The National NAGPRA Program will post information from published notices on its Web site.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; temporary suspension.
This document temporarily waives the requirements of the Commission's rules that govern the submission of information associated with FCC Form 740 concerning imported Radio Frequency (RF) devices. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is implementing a new electronic filing system which is scheduled to become fully operational by December 2016. In light of steps taken related to the transition to the new CBP system, parties importing RF devices will lose the ability to electronically file the required FCC information. The Commission does not believe that it would serve the public interest to establish an alternative means for importers to submit this information with us during the pendency of the rulemaking.
Effective December 7, 2015.
Brian Butler, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2702.
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. The Commission took action to temporarily waive the requirements in §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205 of the Commission's rules that govern the submission of information in connection with imported Radio Frequency (RF) devices, effective July 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, for the following reasons:
2. Section 2.1203 of the Commission's rules states that no RF device may be imported unless the importer or ultimate consignee (or their designated customs broker) declares that the device meets the conditions of entry set forth in our importation rules. Section 2.1205 provides two ways to make this declaration. At ports of entry where electronic filing with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is not available, the importer completes FCC Form 740 and attaches a copy to its customs import papers. Where electronic customs filing is available, the importer may submit the information electronically as part of its entry documentation submission to CBP. Currently, nearly all submissions are made electronically through the CBP's Automated Commercial System (ACS), and very few paper filings are submitted.
3. CBP is deploying a new electronic filing system, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), which will not have the capability for importers to submit the FCC-required Form 740 information electronically. FCC-related importation filings can continue to be submitted electronically
4. The Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
5. If the Commission retains or modifies the Form 740 information filing requirement, parties will be precluded from filing electronically after July 1, 2016 outside of the ACE system. The ACE system would have to be modified to render that system capable of accepting FCC Form 740s, which would require appreciable amount of time and expense and may not be able to be implemented by July 1. This would mean that for some period of time after July 1, all the Form 740 filings would be made via paper. Such a result would be impractical. The Commission estimated that it would receive approximately 20,000 such forms each week, with the same number of forms submitted to CBP. In addition, numerous importers would also have to file with FDA or other agencies that may regulate a given device. Given the circumstances, the Commission found that, absent a waiver, there would be significant burdens associated with the ACE implementation for Form 740, for the CBP and FCC. If the Commission ultimately eliminates the Form 740 requirements, any efforts to modify ACE to accommodate Form 740 will have been unnecessary. On the other hand, if the Commission determines to require the Form 740 information filing, the necessary changes to the ACE can be made at that time.
6. The timing of the Commission's open proceeding also introduces considerable regulatory uncertainty for the importation community that further supports the need for a waiver. Based on discussions with manufacturers with considerable importation volumes and import brokers and brokers' associations, the Commission determined that it could take a number of months for the members of the importation community to tailor their existing documentation and related processes to any new importation regime—even one that lifts burdens. Accordingly, this community needs to know whether its members should begin making the necessary preparations for compliance with a paper-based regime in July, or whether they can continue using their existing processes with some assurance that they will not be expected to make a flash cut to a paper filing process come July.
7. Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules provides that “[a]ny provision of the rules may be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good cause therefor is shown.” For the above stated reasons, the Commission found good cause to temporarily waive the above-described filing requirements in §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205 of the rules effective July 1, 2016, and extending for six months. Assuming that the waiver remains necessary as of July 1, the Commission anticipates that any difficulties associated with not gathering data through Form 740 will be relatively limited in time and scope. The Commission will work with CBP to draw on other data to satisfy any informational needs that are currently provided through the operation of §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205. If the Commission decides to retain the requirement that importers submit some or all of the information required by §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205, it will set forth appropriate revised filing procedures at that time. To the extent that a waiver remains necessary as of July 1, our action only affects the manner in which the Commission collects the information about imported RF equipment that is associated with the requirements of §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205. The general proscription against importation of non-authorized equipment is unaffected and will remain fully in effect.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission will temporarily waive the requirements of §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205, effective July 1, 2016. The waiver will remain in effect through December 31, 2016. The Commission also delegated authority to the Office of Engineering and Technology to extend this date, but no later than the effective date of any decision regarding §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205 in the
9. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r), and Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Section 1.3, that §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205 of the Commission's rules and Regulations, ARE TEMPORARILY WAIVED, effective July 1, 2016, to the Federal Communications Commission.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Kiwifruit Administrative Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.025 to $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of growers of kiwifruit operating within the area of production. Assessments upon kiwifruit handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins on August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Comments must be received by November 20, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Internet:
Kathie Notoro, Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email:
This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 920, as amended (7 CFR part 920), regulating the handling of kiwifruit grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California kiwifruit handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein would be applicable to all assessable kiwifruit beginning on August 1, 2015, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.025 to $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit.
The California kiwifruit marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers of California kiwifruit. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2013-14 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.
The Committee met on July 17 and September 16, 2015, and unanimously recommended 2015-16 fiscal year expenditures of $132,725 and an assessment rate of $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit handled to fund Committee expenses. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $120,925. The assessment rate of $0.040 is $0.015 more than the rate currently in effect. The Committee's recommended 2015-16 expenditures are $11,800 higher than last year's budgeted expenditures. The
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 fiscal period include $80,000 for management expenses, $14,000 for two financial audits, $14,330 for research, $7,500 for International Kiwifruit Organization (IKO) travel, $2,500 membership fee to Buy California, and $2,500 membership fee to the IKO. Major budgeted expenses for the 2014-15 fiscal period were $80,000 for management expenses, $7,500 for a financial audit, $5,000 for handler audits, $2,500 membership fee to Buy California, $2,500 for IKO membership, and $12,500 for IKO travel.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering the amount of revenue needed to meet anticipated expenses divided by expected shipments of California kiwifruit. As previously mentioned, kiwifruit shipments for the 2015-16 fiscal period are estimated at 2,297,000 9-kilo volume-fill containers, which should provide $91,880 in assessment income. Anticipated assessment income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and $40,756 from the Committee's authorized financial reserve would provide sufficient funds for the Committee to meet its budgeted expenses. It is anticipated that $29,119 would remain in the financial reserve at the end of July 2016, which would be within the maximum amount permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal year's expenses (§ 920.42).
The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2015-16 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 178 kiwifruit growers in the production area and approximately 28 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
The National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) reported total California kiwifruit production for the 2014 season at 27,400 tons, with an average price of $1,190 per ton. Based on the average price and shipment information provided by NASS and the Committee, it could be concluded that the majority of kiwifruit handlers would be considered small businesses under the SBA definition. Based on kiwifruit production and price information, as well as the total number of California kiwifruit growers, average annual grower revenue is less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of California kiwifruit growers may also be classified as small entities.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established by the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.025 to $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit. The Committee unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $132,725 and an assessment rate of $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container. The proposed assessment rate of $0.040 is $0.015 higher than the 2014-15 rate. The quantity of assessable kiwifruit for the 2015-16 fiscal period is estimated at 2,297,000 9-kilo volume-fill containers. Thus, the $0.040 rate should provide $91,880 in assessment income. Anticipated assessment income derived from handler assessments, along with financial reserve funds and interest income, would provide sufficient revenue for the Committee to meet its budgeted expenses, while maintaining its financial reserve within the maximum amount permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal year's expenses (§ 920.42).
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 fiscal period include $80,000 for management expenses, $14,000 for two financial audits, $14,330 for research, $7,500 for International Kiwifruit Organization (IKO) travel, $2,500 membership fee to Buy California, and $2,500 membership fee to the IKO. Major budgeted expenses for the 2014-15 fiscal period were $80,000 for management expenses, $7,500 for a financial audit, $5,000 for handler audits, $2,500 membership fee to Buy California, $2,500 for IKO membership, and $12,500 for IKO travel.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered alternative expenditure levels, to include maintaining the current assessment rate, but ultimately determined that the current assessment rate would generate insufficient revenue to meet its expenses.
According to data from NASS, the season average producer price was $11.09 per 9-kilo volume-fill container in 2013 and $11.78 per 9-kilo volume-fill container in 2014. A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the grower price for 2015-16 could range between $11.09 and $11.78 per 9-kilo volume-fill container of assessable kiwifruit. Therefore, estimated assessment revenue for the 2015-16 fiscal year as a percentage of total producer revenue could be between 0.34 percent and 0.36 percent.
This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California kiwifruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
A 15-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Fifteen days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2015-16 fiscal year began on August 1, 2015, handlers began shipping kiwifruit in September and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment apply to all assessable kiwifruit handled during the fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses, which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years.
Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit is established for kiwifruit grown in California.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Turbomeca S.A. ARRIEL 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines with modification TU34 or TU34A installed. This proposed AD was prompted by torque conformation box (TCB) failures. This proposed AD would require inspecting the TCB for correct resistance values and removing TCBs that fail inspection before further flight. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the TCB which could lead to loss of engine thrust control and damage to the aircraft.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 4, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2015-0177, dated August 25, 2015 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Several cases of torque conformation box (TCB) failures have been reported on engines incorporating mod TU34 or mod TU34A. Investigation concluded that these failures were caused by cracks on soldered joints of TCB resistors.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to limited power availability in a One Engine Inoperative (OEI) case, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 2860, Version A, dated July 15, 2015. The MSB describes procedures for checking TCB resistance values. 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 France, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require inspecting the TCB for correct resistance values and removing TCBs that fail inspection.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 300 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We estimate that it would take about 1 hour to perform an inspection. We also estimate that 20% of these engines would fail the inspection and require TCB removal, which would take about 1 hour. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $30,600.
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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by January 4, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. ARRIEL 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines with modification TU34 or TU34A installed.
This AD was prompted by torque conformation box (TCB) failures. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the TCB, which could lead to loss of engine thrust control and damage to the aircraft.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 600 engine flight hours (EFHs) or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, check the resistance values on the TCB. Use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.3.2 of Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 292 72 2860, Version A, dated July 15, 2015, to do the inspection. Repeat this inspection every 600 EFHs since last inspection.
(2) Remove before further flight any TCB that fails the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0177, dated August 25, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 72 2860, Version A, dated July 15, 2015, can be obtained from Turbomeca S.A., using the contact information in paragraph (g)(4) of this proposed AD.
(4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Quest Aircraft Design, LLC Model KODIAK 100 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of limited control yoke movement of the elevator control system due to cushion edging jammed in the elevator control anti-rotation guide slot. This proposed AD would require repetitively inspecting the elevator control system cushion edging for proper condition; replacing the cushion edging; and at a specified time terminating the repetitive inspections by installing wear pads on the elevator bearing assemblies. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 21, 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 Quest Aircraft Design, LLC, 1200 Turbine Drive, Sandpoint, Idaho 83864; telephone: (208) 263-1111; toll free: (866) 263-1112; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
David Herron, Aerospace Engineer, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057; phone: (425) 917-6469; fax: (425) 917-6591; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report that, during a preflight inspection, an operator noted limited travel of the control yoke on a Quest Aircraft Design, LLC Model KODIAK 100 airplane. Upon further inspection of the control yoke system forward of the control yoke, cushion edging was found jammed in the elevator control anti-rotation guide slot. The jammed edging prevented the control yoke from having full nose up and nose down travel. The operator also reported the same problem on a different KODIAK 100 airplane in which the cushion edging plastic portion separated from the metal track.
Investigation revealed that over time the cushion edging may become worn and degrade. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the elevator control system cushion edging, which could restrict elevator control yoke movement and cause loss of control.
We reviewed Quest Aircraft KODIAK Mandatory Service Bulletin SB14-07, dated August 26, 2014; Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction, Elevator Control System—Cushion Edging Inspection, Report No. FSI-105, Revision 00, not dated; Quest Aircraft KODIAK 100 Recommended Service Bulletin SB15-01, dated March 26, 2015; and Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction, Yoke Anti-Rotation Guide Wear Pad Upgrade, Report No. FSI-108, Revision 00, not dated. The service information describes procedures for repetitively inspecting the cushion edging installed on the elevator control anti-rotation guide for proper condition,
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 60 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
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 December 21, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Quest Aircraft Design, LLC Model KODIAK 100 airplanes, all serial numbers 100-0001 through 100-0149, that are certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2730; Elevator Control System.
This AD was prompted by a report of limited control yoke movement due to cushion edging jammed in the elevator control anti-rotation guide slot. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the elevator control system, which could result in loss of control.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before further flight after the effective date of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours time-in-service or at every annual inspection, whichever comes first, until the terminating action specified in paragraph (i) of this AD is done, inspect the cushion edging, part number (P/N) M22529/2-3R-25, located on each side of the elevator control anti-rotation guide slot, P/N 100-619-0008, for the pilot and co-pilot control yoke assemblies, following section 5.1 Cushion Edging Inspection of Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction, Elevator Control System—Cushion Edging Inspection, Report No. FSI-105, Revision 00, not dated, as specified in Quest Aircraft KODIAK Mandatory Service Bulletin SB14-07, dated August 26, 2014.
If damage or wear is found during any inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace the cushion edging following section 5.3 of Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction, Elevator Control System—Cushion Edging Inspection, Report No. FSI-105, Revision 00, not dated, as specified in Quest Aircraft KODIAK Mandatory Service Bulletin SB14-07, dated August 26, 2014.
Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, remove the cushion edging, P/N M22529/2-3R-25, installed on the elevator control anti-rotation guide, and install wear pads, P/N 100-619-0037, on the elevator bearing assembly link arm following section 5. Instructions, including all subsections, of Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction, Yoke Anti-Rotation Guide Wear Pad Upgrade, Report No. FSI-108, Revision 00, not dated, as specified in Quest Aircraft KODIAK 100 Recommended Service Bulletin SB15-01, dated March 26, 2015. Installing all four wear pads on the pilot and co-pilot arms of the elevator bearing assemblies terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact David Herron, Aerospace Engineer, Seattle ACO, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057; phone: (425) 917-6469; fax: (425) 917-6591; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Quest Aircraft Design, LLC, 1200 Turbine Drive, Sandpoint, Idaho 83864; telephone: (208) 263-1111; toll free: (866) 263-1112; email:
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Withdrawal of proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is withdrawing VA's proposed rulemaking, published in the
The proposed rule published on November 28, 2014, 79 FR 70941, is withdrawn as of November 5, 2015.
Kristin J. Cunningham, Director Business Policy, Chief Business Office (10NB6), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 382-2508. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In a proposed rule published in the
Because no adverse comments were received within the comment period, VA is withdrawing the proposed rule as unnecessary. In a companion document in this issue of the
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on October 26, 2015, for publication.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is noticing a recent filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal One Through Three). The Commission will consider Proposals One and Two at this time. Proposal Three will be held in abeyance. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On October 8, 2015, the United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding in order to consider changes to how the Postal Service accounts for the costs of competitive products in its periodic reports.
UPS explains that the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act freed the Postal Service from certain rate-making conditions so that it could better compete with private companies in the parcel markets. Petition at 3. UPS notes, however, that when regulated entities such as the Postal Service are allowed to compete with private companies, “the regulated entity has a natural incentive to leverage the monopoly revenues it is making from sales to its captive customers (here, those purchasing letter mail services) to finance the competitive ventures.”
UPS states that it is filing this Petition after an “exhaustive analysis” of the Postal Service's cost methodologies.
In Proposal One, UPS recommends that the Postal Service incorporate all the variable costs, including the inframarginal costs attributable to individual products.
In Proposal One, UPS explains that in order to attribute costs to products, the Postal Service first estimates the marginal cost of various cost segments. Petition, Proposal One at 1-2. UPS notes, however, that the Postal Service's cost attribution method “effectively assumes that the cost associated with adding the last unit of mail is identical to the cost associated with adding each and every unit of mail.”
UPS argues that this is only a reasonable assumption when marginal costs are consistent throughout all volume levels.
UPS recommends that the Postal Service include the inframarginal costs of individual products in its calculation of the costs attributable to those products. Petition at 1. It argues that distribution keys, which are currently used to calculate “volume variable” costs, can be used to distribute inframarginal costs to products.
In Proposal Two, UPS contends that the Postal Service has a “systematic tendency to misclassify costs as fixed.” Petition at 10. Such fixed costs, which are a major component of institutional costs, are not attributed to specific products.
Relying on Dr. Neels' analysis, UPS identifies 37 cost pools that it believes should be reclassified as wholly or partially variable.
Unlike Proposals One and Two, Proposal Three does not involve issues related to the proper attribution of variable costs to the Postal Service's products. Rather, in Proposal Three, UPS requests that the Commission reconsider the “appropriate share” of institutional costs that must be covered by competitive products. Petition, Proposal Three at 1. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3633(b), the Commission is required to review the appropriate share requirement at least every 5 years to determine if the percentage should be “retained in its current form, modified, or eliminated.” The current appropriate share, set by the Commission in CY 2012, is 5.5 percent.
In light of competitive products' volume growth in recent years, along with the Postal Service's significant investments in its competitive business, UPS believes that the current appropriate share percentage does not reflect current market conditions. Petition, Proposal Three at 6-14. To ensure that the Postal Service competes fairly, UPS asserts that the appropriate share percentage should be set at a level that approximates the fixed costs that a private competitor must bear.
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2016-2 for consideration of Proposals One and Two as raised by the Petition. The Commission holds Proposal Three in abeyance until it has completed its review of Proposals One and Two. As discussed above, Proposals One and Two both relate to the proper attribution of all variable costs to the Postal Service's products. Given the interrelatedness of these two proposals, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to consider them together in this docket. However, as UPS itself discussed in its Petition, if Proposals One and Two are adopted, unattributed costs will decline from $34.2 billion in FY 2014 to approximately $17 billion. Petition at 11-12.
Given the potentially significant impact that Proposals One and Two could have on the size of the Postal Service's unattributed costs, and given that Proposal Three relates to the portion of these costs that should be covered by competitive products, the Commission finds that consideration of Proposal Three should be delayed until the impact of Proposals One and Two are known. Both the Commission and the mailing community will benefit from having this information before evaluating UPS's proposed adjustments to the appropriate share requirement. Further, the Commission must allocate its finite resources across multiple priorities. Simultaneously considering all three proposals may result in the Commission having insufficient resources to bring to bear on other critical responsibilities.
Additional information concerning the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2016-2 for consideration of Proposals One and Two from the Petition of United Parcel Service, Inc. for the Initiation of Proceedings to Make Changes to Postal Service Costing Methodologies, filed October 8, 2015.
2. Consideration of Proposal Three from the Petition is held in abeyance until the Commission has completed its review of Proposals One and Two.
3. Comments are due no later than January 20, 2016. Reply comments are due no later than March 25, 2016.
4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth E. Richardson to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Louisiana. These rule revisions are the 2007 General Revisions, and 2008-2010
Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0434, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Alan Shar (6PD-L), telephone (214) 665-6691, email
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
On July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38977) EPA finalized approval of general rule revisions to the Louisiana SIP which covered the years of 1996-2006.
We are now proposing to approve two revisions to the Louisiana SIP submitted to EPA by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). The first submittal is the 2007 general revisions submitted to EPA with a letter dated August 14, 2009. The second submittal is the 2008-2010 miscellaneous rules revisions submitted to EPA with a letter dated August 29, 2013.
The 2008-2010 miscellaneous rules revisions apply to Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33: III, Chapters 7 and 13. The 2007 general revisions apply to LAC 33: III, Chapters 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 21, 22, 23, and 25. The Louisiana rule revisions submittals, their corresponding Chapters, and our actions are shown in Table 1 below.
Certain provisions of the 2007 general revisions are not being acted upon here because they were withdrawn or we plan to act on them separately in the future. In a letter dated October 2, 2015 LDEQ withdrew its revisions to Chapter 15 from our review. The October 2, 2015 withdrawal letter is available in this docket. The EPA plans to act on SIP revisions to Chapters 2, 5, and 6 separately in the future.
There is no increase in the amount of emissions or number of sources affected as a result of ministerial or administrative rules revisions throughout this notice; therefore, section 110(l) of the Act has been complied with.
In 2006, EPA revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter. The LDEQ adopted revisions to NAAQS for particulate matter in LAC 33:III, Chapter 7. This revision will update the Louisiana air quality regulations to include the revised NAAQS for particulate matter. The revision is consistent with the NAAQS for PM
Currently, the LAC 33:III Chapter 13 Abrasive Blasting is not in the EPA-approved SIP. The 2007 general revisions submittal establishes the standards of performance for abrasive blasting operations and includes provisions concerning requirement to control emissions through either enclosure or establishment of best management practices, maintenance of control equipment, recordkeeping requirements, and prohibited materials and methods that cannot be used in abrasive blasting activities requirements. The LDEQ later in its
Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 1 General Provisions concern § 111 Definitions. The revisions defines the term SPOC or the Single Point of Contact. The revision is ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose its approval into the SIP.
Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 9 General Regulations on Control of Emissions and Emission Standards concern § 918 Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting and § 919 Emission Inventory which require data for emission reports be collected annually, include air pollutants that a NAAQS has been issued for, and the owner or operator submit reports to the Office Environmental Assessment. The revisions are ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose their approval into the SIP.
Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 11 Control of Emissions of Smoke concern reporting of opacity exceedances and exemptions. The revisions now require that reports be submitted to the SPOC instead of the Office of Environmental Compliance, Emergency and Radiological Services Division. The revisions are ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose their approval into the SIP.
Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 14 Conformity concern § 1410 Criteria for Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions and § 1434 Consultation that designate the secretary of Department of Environmental Quality or a designee and assistant secretary of the Office of Planning and Programming or a designee participate in the conformity consultation process. The revisions are ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose their approval into the SIP.
Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 21 Control of Emission of Organic Compounds concern §§ 2103, 2108, 2113, 2116, 2122, 2123, 2132, 2153, and 2159. See Part B of the TSD for more information. The revisions throughout this Chapter are ministerial and administrative in nature. We propose their approval into the SIP.
Revision to LAC 33:III Chapter 22 Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides concerns § 2201 removing the term “Air Permits Division.” This revision is ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose its approval into the SIP.
Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 23 Control of Emissions for Specific Industries concern §§ 2301 and 2303 deleting the terms “Air Quality Assessment Division;” and § 2307 deleting “the Office of Environmental Compliance, Emergency and Radiological Services Division” when submitting the required reports and plans. The revision are ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose their approval into the SIP.
Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 25, Subchapter B—Biomedical Waste Incineration Rules concern § 2511 Standards of Performance for Biomedical Waste; Subchapter C-Refuse Incinerators § 2521 Refuse Incinerators; and Subchapter D-Crematories § 2531 Standards of Performance for Crematories. On July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38977) EPA approved the existing provisions of LAC 33:III Chapter 25 into the SIP. The revisions reflect the updated names of offices or departmental organizations that reports or test results should be submitted to for review and approval. The revisions are ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose their approval into the SIP.
Certain provisions of the Louisiana SIP are affected by EPA's June 12, 2015 National SIP Call (80 FR 33967). Those provisions are identified as §§ 1107(A), 1507(A)(1), 1507(B)(1), 2153(B)(1)(i), 2201(C)(8), 2307(C)(1), and 2307(C)(2). Finally, our proposed approval of amendments to LAC 33:III, Chapters 11, 21, 22, and 23 should not, in any way, be construed as explicitly or implicitly voiding or minimizing any concerns or inadequacies identified in EPA's National SIP Call of June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33967) with respect to the above referenced provisions. We continue to expect that issues raised within the context of the EPA's National SIP Call to be addressed in a timely fashion. See section 110(k)(5) of the Act.
We are proposing to approve rule revisions to LAC 33:III, Chapter 1, § 111; Chapter 7, §§ 701, 703, and 711; Chapter 9, §§ 918, and 919; Chapter 13, §§ 1323, 1325, 1327, 1329, 1331, and 1333; Chapter 14, §§ 1410, and 1434; Chapter 21, §§ 2103, 2108, 2113, 2116, 2121, 2122, 2123, 2132, 2153, and 2159; Chapter 22, § 2201; Chapter 23, §§ 2301, 2302, and 2307; and Chapter 25, §§ 2511, 2521, and 2531.
We are proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with sections 110, and 129 of the Act.
In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. If a portion of the plan revision meets all the applicable requirements of this chapter and Federal regulations, the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices that meet the criteria of the Act, and to disapprove state choices that do not meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this proposed action approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); and
• Is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to the Tennessee state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation on behalf of the Knox County Department of Air Quality Management (County Department), on March 14, 2014, and May 14, 2015, that require certain sources in Knox County, Tennessee, to report actual emissions of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen to the County Department annually. These changes amend the Knox County Air Quality Management Regulations in the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP to reflect the State of Tennessee's SIP-approved emissions statement requirements for Knox County. This proposed action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations.
Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0456 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached at (404) 562-9088 and via electronic mail at
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules and Regulations section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO
Any comments must arrive by December 7, 2015.
Submit comments, identified by docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0552, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 942 3073,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency/agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.
On April 30, 2015, the EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD 4905 and SCAQMD 1111 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
We approved a previous version of Rule 4905 into the SIP on May 30, 2007 in 72 FR 29886 and a previous version of Rule 1111 August 4, 2010 in 75 FR 46845.
NO
SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
The SIP must implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM), including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable, in ozone nonattainment areas classified Moderate and above (see CAA section 172(c)(1), 40 CFR 51.912(d) and 51.1112(c)). In addition, the SIP must require RACT for all major sources of NO
The SIP must also implement RACM, including RACT, as expeditiously as possible in PM
SIP rules must implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” (the NO
5. “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” EPA, January 2001 (EPA-452/R-01-001).
We believe these rules are consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, stringency and SIP revisions. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rules because we believe they fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until December 7, 2015. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. While we are proposing to fully approve the rules, the TSDs discuss why fee provisions in these rules limit the creditable emission reductions from these rules in some CAA planning actions.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the SJVUAPCD and SCAQMD rules as described in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations (CAA section 110(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 Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to the Clark County portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of sulfur (SO
Any comments must arrive by December 7, 2015.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0673, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3073,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On November 20, 2014, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted a SIP revision that includes amendments to two local rules adopted by the Clark County Board of County Commissioners (“Clark County”) and rescissions of four local Clark County rules.
Table 1 lists the rule rescissions that the EPA herein proposes to approve, with the date the rule was first locally effective and the EPA's date and citation of approval.
Table 2 lists the rule rescissions that the EPA herein proposes disapprove, with the date the rule was first locally effective and the EPA's date and citation of approval.
On May 20, 2015, the submittal for Clark County was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
This rule rescissions include four sections of the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP, Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60. Previously, NDEP submitted, and the EPA approved into the SIP, various subsections of these rules separately. As a result, the SIP elements concerning each of these Clark County Air Quality Regulations (CCAQR) rules consist of several subsections as identified in Tables 1 and 2.
Clark County adopted a number of rules to meet CAA national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) nonattainment requirements in the late 1970s and 1980s, and submitted many of these for incorporation into the Nevada SIP. The rules that were approved into the SIP included CCAQR Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60.
Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 establish limits and control measures to reduce emissions of SO
Clark County began a process to revise the CCAQR in May 2005. In part, Clark County was concerned with regulatory conflict resulting from the delegation of authority or the local incorporation by reference of federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for many source categories covered under existing local rules. As a result, Clark County repealed Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 on April 5, 2011.
The EPA's technical support document (TSD) associated with today's proposal has more information about these rules.
Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant CAA criteria for stringency, if any, and complies with restrictions on relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110(l), and the General Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved control requirements in effect before November 15, 1990.
Section 29 limited the sulfur content of fuel oils in order to reduce SO
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate these requirements include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” (the NO
We have concluded that CCAQR Sections 29 and 30 are appropriate for rescission. Clark County is currently designated as attainment or maintenance for each of the NAAQS. As a result, Clark County rules are not required to meet RACT or analogous standards, and are subject to the general savings clause in CAA section 193. Clark County also documented that these two rescissions should not increase emissions of ozone precursors, and that any additional emissions would not interfere with the maintenance of applicable NAAQS for SO
However, CCAQR Sections 52 and 60 are not appropriate for rescission as summarized below and described in more detail in our TSD.
Clark County has not demonstrated that rescinding CCAQR Sections 52 and 60 would satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(l). Specifically, we propose to disapprove the rescissions of
1. The rescission of Section 52 from the SIP would allow an increase in VOC emissions, as any other applicable Federal or State rules or standards would not apply to the same breadth of sources as the SIP-approved rule. This would constitute a relaxation of the SIP and would not be protective of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
2. The rescission of Section 60 would allow an increase in VOC emissions. Subsection 60.4 prohibits the use of cutback asphalt in summer months, with certain exceptions, which is not prohibited by any other Federal or State rules that would apply absent subsection 60.4. Removing this prohibition would constitute a relaxation of the SIP and would not be protective of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
While Clark County is no longer enforcing these rules, Clark County Sections 52 and 60 would remain federally enforceable as part of the applicable SIP if the EPA were to finalize today's proposed disapproval of the rescissions of these two rules.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing a partial approval and partial disapproval of the Clark County rule rescissions submitted by NDEP on November 20, 2014. We are proposing to approve the rescissions of CCAQR Sections 29 and 30 and to disapprove the rescissions of Sections 52 and 60. Final approval of the rescissions of Clark County Sections 29 and 30 would remove the rules from the Nevada SIP. Final disapproval of the rescissions of Clark County Sections 52 and 60 would retain both rules in the Nevada SIP.
Neither sanctions nor a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) would be imposed should the EPA finalize this disapproval. Sanctions would not be imposed under CAA section 179(b) because the SIP submittal that we are partially disapproving is not a required SIP submittal. Similarly, EPA would not promulgate a FIP in this instance under CAA section 110(c)(1) because the partial disapproval of the SIP revision retains existing SIP rules and does not reveal a deficiency in the SIP for the area that a FIP must correct.
We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval for the next 30 days.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed SIP approval and disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for the EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.” The EPA has determined that the proposed approval and disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to approve and disapprove the removal of pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires the EPA develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves and disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP and does not alter the
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve and disapprove would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP revision under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
Executive Order (E.O). 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is announcing an extension to the comment period for the proposed rule on improvements to the generator regulations published in the
Comments on the proposed rule published September 25, 2015 (80 FR 57918) must be received on or before December 24, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121, to the
For more detailed information on specific
This document extends the public comment period established in the
To submit comments or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided under
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is announcing an extension to the comment period for the proposed rule on the management and disposal of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals published in the
Comments on the proposed rule published September 25, 2015 (80 FR 58014) must be received on or before December 24, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0932, to the
For more detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Kristin Fitzgerald, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-8286; email address:
This document extends the public comment period established in the
To submit comments or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided under
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Microarray Equipment & Supplies, LLC of Cupertino, California, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/724,736, “OLIGONUCLEOTIDE PROBES FOR SPECIFIC IDENTIFICATION OF NOROVIRUSES AND OTHER PATHOGENS”, filed on May 28, 2015.
Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2015.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Microarray Equipment & Supplies, LLC of Cupertino, California has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3) and the office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, this notice announces the Agricultural Research Service's (ARS) intent to seek reinstatement of the ARS Animal Health National Program Assessment Survey, renamed as the Agricultural Research Service National Program Assessment Survey and expanded so that it can be used by other ARS National Programs. This voluntary information collection will give the beneficiaries of ARS research the opportunity to provide input on the impact of the research conducted by ARS in the last National Program cycle for each of the respective National Programs. This input will be used for planning the research agenda for the next 5-year program cycle.
Comments must be received by January 4, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Dr. Robert C. MacDonald, Agricultural Project Coordinator, Agricultural Research Service, Office of National Programs, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, GWCC, Room 4-2142, Beltsville, Maryland, 20705. Submit electronic comments to
Dr. Robert C. MacDonald at (301) 504-1184.
National Programs serve to bring coordination, communication, and empowerment to approximately 750 research projects carried out by ARS and focus on the relevance, impact, and quality of ARS research. The requested voluntary electronic evaluation survey will give the beneficiaries of ARS research the opportunity to provide input on the impact of several ARS National Programs. For the purpose of this National Program Assessment, impact is defined as
research that has influenced or will significantly influence the area covered by the National Program; has created or will create information, best practices, and/or economic opportunities for the National Program's customers, partners, and stakeholders; or has enabled or will enable action and regulatory agencies to formulate policies and regulations to support American agriculture. The report and evaluation form will be available online through a dedicated URL. The input provided through the completion of the evaluation form will be shared with customers, partners, and stakeholders as part of each National Program's assessment process.
The ARS has 17 National Programs, each of which are assessed every 5 years on a rotating basis as part of ARS' National Program planning cycle to
• Conducting an in-house program assessment and documenting research accomplishments and/or progress for presentation to external reviewers;
• Conducting an external review of accomplishments and/or progress, based on the preceding documentation, focused on the research's relevance, quality, and impact;
• Recording the results of the review; and
• Informing ARS leadership of evaluation results.
All of the methodologies for an assessment include developing a written report of accomplishments from research conducted during the previous 5 years. One assessment method involves sending the accomplishment report to a broad group of informed stakeholders for their reference and asking them to respond by completing an online survey about the impact of the National Program. This survey information is then compiled into a report that can be shared with stakeholders and ARS Administrators. The survey information can also be used for the next step of the National Program Planning cycle, which is planning for the following 5 years.
This survey has previously been used by only one of ARS' National Programs but interest in its use has expanded. Three National Programs will be using this survey within the 3-year information collection period and possibly a fourth, which has been included in the burden hour estimate. Because ARS National Program planning cycle is 5 years in length and is staggered among National Programs, only one or two National Programs will be using the survey in any given year. The survey consists of a set of questions used in common by several or all of the National Programs and a few questions specific to a given National Program.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the input provided by a wide array of customers, and; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology. Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision of the currently approved WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices 2 Study (ITFPS-2). The revision is to amend the 36-month data collection instrument and extend the data collection on the cohort of infants by two years, to their 5th birthdays and therefore through the entire period of their WIC eligibility. The data will be used to estimate the type and prevalence of various feeding practices in the WIC population and assess whether the new WIC food packages (instituted in 2009) have influenced feeding practices. This study will also examine the circumstances and influences that shape caregivers' feeding decisions for their children, and will describe the impact of these decisions throughout early childhood.
Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2016.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
To request more information on the proposed project, contact Allison Magness, Ph.D., R.D., Social Science Research Analyst, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Allison Magness at 703-305-2576 or via email to
The study activities subject to this notice include: Informing State WIC offices and local WIC sites that the study has been extended and their role in the extension study; collecting contact information on 2,444 caregivers in the study during the 36-month telephone interview; administering four additional telephone interviews to up to 3,184 caregivers of children enrolled in the study when their child is 42-, 48-, 54-, and 60-months old; and obtaining their child's height and weight measurements at 48- and 60-months from WIC administrative records, health care provider records, or direct measurements at WIC sites.
The State WIC office and local WIC site staff will be invited to participate in a webinar that will highlight key study findings to date (from reports cleared by FNS) and describe the study extension to age 5. States and sites will participate in conference calls to discuss the follow-up activities. Each study participant will receive a letter about the study extension when the child is 33 months of age and will be asked to provide updated contact information to ensure ongoing participation, at the time of the 36-month interview. Prior to being contacted for each subsequent telephone interview, the caregiver for each child in the cohort will be mailed an advance letter that includes a toll-free number to call for questions or to complete the interview. Participants will also be re-contacted between interviews throughout this study. Participants will receive periodic mailings, calls, emails, and text messages asking them to provide updated contact information and reminding them of upcoming interviews and height and weight (H/W) measurements. WIC site staff will weigh and measure study children at ages 48- and 60-months. Additional H/W measures will come from provider records, WIC State agency administrative records, and home health agency measurements. WIC site staff will also provide updated contact information when requested.
The burden for all affected public, respondents and non-respondents is broken down in the table below.
The estimated burden for each type of respondent is given in the table below.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) has submitted a proposal to the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests (NF) to pursue approval of select projects from its 2013 Master Development Plan (MDP). The GMUG has accepted this proposal and is initiating the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose the potential environmental effects of implementing the projects. The Proposed Action includes: A Special Use Permit (SUP) boundary adjustment to include skiable terrain in the Teo Drainage area, the addition of lift-served terrain in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage area, installation of additional snowmaking infrastructure, realignment of the existing North Face lift, and supplemental mountain biking trails.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by December 7, 2015. Two public open houses regarding this proposal will be held: One on November 18, 2015 from 5-8 p.m.; and one on November 19, 2015 from 5-8 p.m. (See the
Send written comments to: Scott Armentrout, Forest Supervisor, c/o Aaron Drendel, Recreation Staff Officer, Gunnison Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, 216 N. Colorado St., Gunnison, CO 81230; FAX (970) 642-4425 or by email to:
Additional information related to the proposed project can be obtained from: Aaron Drendel, Recreation Staff Officer, Gunnison Ranger District. Mr. Drendel can be reached by phone at (970) 641-0471 or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The Forest Service is responding to an application submitted under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 and Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011 (SAROEA) by CBMR to implement projects from their accepted MDP. In the MDP, CBMR identified a deficiency in developed intermediate/advanced terrain compared with CBMR's skier and rider market. It also noted a slight deficit of developed expert terrain. The MDP also identifies a need to enhance summer recreation activities (consistent with the SAREOEA) in order to meet increasing guest expectations.
The GMUG, through acceptance of CBMR's Master Development Plan, has identified a need to:
• Meet increased public demand for developed intermediate, advanced, and expert terrain skiing terrain by developing the main mountain;
• Develop the total amount of developed and undeveloped terrain and ski pods, with an emphasis on intermediate and advanced skiers, in order to increase the skiing opportunities for the guests and thereby increase their length of stay;
• Provide an expanded offering of additional recreational activities for year-round utilization of existing facilities, consistent with summer use impact zones in the MDP;
• Continue to increase the quality of the facilities to meet the ever-increasing expectations of the local, regional, and destination skier markets; and
• Improve skier circulation and opportunities by realigning the North Face Lift and adding snowmaking infrastructure.
The Proposed Action includes the following six elements:
• SUP boundary adjustment and amendment to the 1991 GMUG National Forests' Amended Land and Resource Management Plan;
• Construction of new intermediate and advanced ski trails and glades in Teo Park and Teo Drainage;
• Construction of two new lifts (Teo Drainage, and Teo Park), and realignment of the existing North Face lift;
• New snowmaking infrastructure on the following existing trails:
• Construction of approximately 2,300 feet of new road and 450 feet of realigned road for construction and maintenance access; and
• Construction of approximately 15 miles of multi-use and mountain biking trails.
A full description of each element can be found at:
The Responsible Official is Scott Armentrout, Forest Supervisor for the GMUG.
Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official will review the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to decide the following:
• Whether to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application for additional ski area improvements and associated activities.
• Whether to prescribe conditions needed for the protection of the environment on NFS lands.
• Whether or not to approve a site-specific Forest Plan Amendment changing the management area boundaries for the expansion.
Forest Service Special Use Permit (SUP)
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The Forest Service is soliciting comments from Federal, State and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by implementation of the proposed projects. Two public open houses regarding this proposal will be held: one at the Fred R. Field Western Heritage Center located at 275 S. Spruce Street, Gunnison, CO 81230 on November 18, 2015 from 5-8 p.m.; and one at the Ballrooms at the Lodge at Mountaineer Square, 620 Gothic Road,
To be most helpful, comments should be specific to the project area and should identify resources or effects that should be considered by the Forest Service. Submitting timely, specific written comments during this scoping period or any other official comment period establishes standing for filing objections under 36 CFR part 218, subparts A and B. Additional information and maps of this proposal can be found at:
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Yavapai Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Prescott, Arizona. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held December 1, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Prescott Fire Center, 2400 Melville Drive, Prescott, Arizona.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Debbie Maneely, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 928-443-8130 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is:
1. Update RAC on Outreach Efforts For Vacant Positions;
2. Review Round 5 Projects; and
3. Rank and Select Round 5 Projects.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by December 1, 2015, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Debbie Maneely, RAC Coordinator, 344 South Cortez, Prescott, Arizona 86301; or by email to
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice and request for comments.
NRCS is proposing to revise Section I of the Illinois Field Office Technical Guide to include “Guidance for Illinois Food Security Act Wetland Determinations Including Offsite Methods” which will replace the existing “Wetland Mapping Conventions NRCS Illinois” (commonly referred as State Wetland Mapping Conventions).
Comments should be submitted, identified by Docket Number NRCS-2015-0014, using any of the following methods:
•
•
• NRCS will post all comments on
Eric A. Gerth, Acting State Conservationist. Phone: 217-353-6600
“Guidance for Illinois Food Security Act Wetland Determinations Including Offsite Methods” will be used as part of the technical documents and procedures to conduct wetland determinations on agricultural land as required by 16 U.S.C. 3822. NRCS is required by 16 U.S.C. 3862 to make available for public review and comment all proposed revisions to standards and procedures used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law.
All comments will be considered. If no comments are received, “Guidance for Illinois Food Security Act Wetland Determinations Including Offsite Methods” will be considered final.
Electronic copies of the proposed “Guidance for Illinois Food Security Act Wetland Determinations Including Offsite Methods” are available through
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Ramon Toledo, US Census Bureau, Room 7H590T, Washington, DC 20233-8500; phone: (301) 763-5773 or email:
The Census Bureau plans to conduct the 2017 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey (NYCHVS) under contract for the City of New York. The primary purpose of the survey is to measure the rental vacancy rate, which is the primary factor in determining the continuation of rent control regulations. Other survey information is used by city and state agencies for planning purposes and by the private sector for business decisions. New York is required by city law to have such a survey conducted every three years.
Information to be collected includes: age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, and relationship of all household members; employment status, education level, and income for persons aged 15 and above. Owner/renter status (tenure) is asked for all occupied units. Utility costs, monthly rent, availability of kitchen and bathroom facilities, maintenance deficiencies, neighborhood suitability, and other specific questions about each unit such as number of rooms and bedrooms are also asked. The survey also poses a number of questions relating to handicapped accessibility. For vacant units, a shorter series of similar questions is asked. Finally, all vacant units and approximately five percent of occupied units will be reinterviewed for quality assurance purposes.
The Census Bureau compiles the data in tabular format based on specifications of the survey sponsor, as well as non-identifiable microdata. Both types of data are also made available to the general public through the Census Internet site. Note, however, that the sponsor, like the general public, does not receive any information that identifies any sample respondent or household.
We will attempt to collect all information via a personal interview using a questionnaire that is available in English and Spanish. However, upon the respondent's request, a telephone interview may be conducted.
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of new Privacy Act System of Records: “COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System.”
The Department of Commerce (Department) publishes this notice to announce the effective date of a Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled: COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System.
The system of records becomes effective on November 5, 2015.
For a copy of the system of records please mail requests to: Michael J. Toland, Departmental Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, Office of Privacy and Open Government, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 52010, Washington, DC 20230.
Michael J. Toland, Department Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, Office of Privacy and Open Government, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 52010, Washington, DC 20230.
On May 8, 2015, and June 29, 2015, the Department published and requested comments on a proposed new Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled: COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System. The system serves to provide electronic physical access control, intrusion detection and video management solutions to ensure the safety and security of DOC assets to include people, facilities, information and property. The system controls access to only those authorized as well as aids in the monitoring, assessment and response to security and emergency related incidents. By this notice, the Department is adopting the proposed new system as final effective November 5, 2015.
Interested parties were afforded the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process through the submission of written comments on the proposed new systems of records notice (SORN). The Department received five public submissions in response to the proposed SORN. Due consideration was given to each comment received and the Department's responses to those comments are noted below.
One commenter recommended adding language under the Safeguards section to “address how the records/system is planned to address insider threats.” The Department disagrees with this commenter's suggestion. The addition of such language would potentially impact the effectiveness of the Department's Insider Threat Program.
Several commenters urged the Department to withdraw this proposed system of records and to “refrain from implementing any intrusive system that needlessly monitors the movements of its employees.” In support of their suggestion, two commenters said that “The Department has not explained the need for tracking employees' every physical movement when on-site, which, in the proposed system of records, would go so far as to include monitoring the buttons employees strike on their work station keyboards.” Further, those commenters raised concerns about employee morale and the security of the system. In addition, several commenters submitted the view that this SORN does not adequately describe provisions or processes to insure the safety and integrity of employees' sensitive personally identifiable information.
The Department disagrees with these comments. The system of records covered by this SORN are subject to the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), which requires that controls be put in place to protect IT systems and the information contained within. Additionally, Privacy Impact Assessments have been conducted on these systems to further define procedures for protecting Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and address the impact on employees' privacy. Further, the SAFEGUARDS section of this notice describes methods for protecting information maintained in this system. For example, this section mentions that “electronic records are password-protected or PKI-protected, consistent with the requirements of [FISMA] (Pub. L. 107-296), and associated OMB policies, standards and guidance from the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, and the General Services Administration, all records are protected from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards.” It should be noted that safeguards should be described in general terms and to the extent they would not compromise system security, which serves as an added layer of protection for employees' data.
One commenter suggested that it was unclear whether the Department is attempting to either (1) create a new database with all the information set forth in the SORN, or (2) come into compliance with statutes and regulations concerning employee data that the Department already has in an existing system. The Department is issuing this new SORN to ensure that the Department is in compliance with the Privacy Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11); and OMB Circular A-130, Appendix I, Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals for all categories of information covered by DEPT-25. This SORN covers some similar categories of information as a government-wide SORN, GOVT-7, “Personal Identity Verification Identity Management System (PIV IDMS).” After a review, the Department decided to implement a more specific SORN with respect to this system of records.
The same commenter further suggested that if the SORN is bringing the Department into compliance, then certain personnel actions involving employee data collected prior to publication of the SORN are called into question. This comment goes beyond the scope of the content and adequacy of this SORN.
Another commenter proposed that implementation of the SORN will result in a significant staffing increase to administer and monitor the program. The Department disagrees. Adequate resources are available within the Department's Office of Security and Office of the Chief Information Officer to administer and monitor the program as it relates to Access Control and Identity Management.
One commenter suggested that employees will have difficulty determining what information the Department is maintaining on them and how to obtain the information kept. The Department disagrees with the commenter's suggestion. This notice has a section, CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM, which enumerates the information collected from individuals. Should an employee need additional clarification on information collected and maintained on him or her in this system of records, the employee can file a Privacy Act request following the procedures outlined in the NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE section of this notice. With regard to obtaining information kept, another section, RECORDS ACCESS PROCEDURES, provides instructions on how an individual can request access to records on himself or herself. It should be noted that under the SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN PROVISION OF THE ACT section, all information and material in the record which meets the
Another commenter asked whether an employee will be monitored more closely based on political or religious or other beliefs. There is no authority for an agency to monitor its employees based on their political or religious beliefs. In fact, Section 552a(e)(7) of the Privacy Act, prohibits an agency from maintaining a record of how an individual exercises rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, and there are a number of other statutory and policy protections in place that guard against this type of behavior. Therefore, this commenter's concern is misplaced.
Other commenters expressed concerns about how the Department would employ the use of key-stroke monitoring. In particular, they wanted to know whether the information would be used for all agency employees, even those not suspected of committing any violations of Federal law or Department policies. One of the commenters stressed that “It is a well-accepted IT Security policy within the Federal workspace (and also the private sector) that key-logging programs are insidious, and are used by cyber-criminals to mine data surreptitiously in order to gain unauthorized access to protected information resources. Their presence in the workplace is forbidden for these reasons.” The Department would like to clarify for these commenters that key-stroke monitoring, which is included in this system of records, would be used under appropriate conditions to evaluate anomalous behavior, including suspected or established violations of Federal law or Department policies.
One commenter asked if the phrase “agency, entity or persons” referred to in a routine use includes data sharing with private sector companies or “entities.” The Department notes that two routine uses, numbers 12 and 13, found at 80 FR 26356 (May 8, 2015), of the notice contain the phrase “agency, entity or persons.” Routine use number 12 deals with sharing information when a breach occurs, while routine use 13 concerns sharing information “for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law.” In both cases, sharing of information may occur with private sector companies or “entities” that have been contracted to provide the support or services described in the aforementioned routine uses. Information shared is kept to the minimum necessary to accomplish the prescribed tasks. It should be noted that pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 24, Privacy Act clauses are required to be included with any contracts for which a contractor is required to be involved with the design, development, or operation of a system of records on individuals to accomplish an agency function. Under one such clause, FAR 24.104, the contractor agrees to “comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Act) and the agency rules” when using any system of records on individuals in the performance of duties specified in the work statement. The notice also contains a routine use, number 9, which allows records from this system to “be disclosed to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract, but not operating a system of records with the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).”
The same commenter stated, “Further, according to this new system, Commerce could disclose information to Agencies, entities and persons, to prevent, minimize, or remedy `a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of the system.'” This commenter went on to ask whether some interested party in a civil lawsuit could request and gain access to data from this system of records under any of the notice's routine uses. The commenter is referring to routine use number 12, which concerns providing information for breach mitigation and notification. Provision of data from this system of records to an interested party engaged in a civil lawsuit is not part of this routine use.
One commenter suggested that according to the routine use 2 listed in the
One commenter asked how the Department would “ensure that the usage of the new system of records will be limited in its scope [.]” For instance, the individual proposed that the new system poses a risk of the data being used for purposes not intended in this notice. This commenter also suggested that “the collection of badge in/badge out data, time in/time out data, login/logout data, keystroke monitoring and logs of internet activity all point to using this dataset to monitor, by hours and minutes, employees' schedules and work patterns. These paradata are not reliable indicators of the time employee's work and they should not be used for disciplinary purposes.” Employees are responsible for performing their duties at acceptable levels and for conducting themselves in a manner consistent with law, regulations, and policies. If an employee would be found to have behaved in a way that violated these standards, the Department will use evidence to prove those failings by the appropriate statutory standard. Most acts of misconduct are proved by evidence other than the data at issue here, but this data may constitute evidence of misconduct under certain circumstances. The Department's usage of badge records will be undertaken in accordance with this SORN, and there are policies in place that ensure evidence of employee misconduct used in disciplinary actions is truthful, reliable, and probative of the misconduct that is charged.
One commenter proposed that “to ensure security of this system and to protect employees, there should be a system of records of who accesses [the] information [maintained in this system of records], when, for what purposes, and how that information was authorized.” The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, defines conditions under which agencies may disclose information from records retrieved by a person's name or other personal identifier. As a general rule, the Department may not disclose a record about such a person, except upon a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, that individual. However, it is important to note that to carry out its statutory responsibilities the Department at times may need to disclose information in Privacy Act records for purposes other than those listed in the Act. With this in mind, under certain specific conditions, the Privacy Act authorizes disclosure of information in a record, whether or not the person to whom the information relates has requested or consented to disclosure. For instance, the Act authorizes disclosures under, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), Conditions of Disclosure. The Act also authorizes agencies, such as the Department, to make such disclosures, once they publish a description of what are called the “routine uses” of information in their records.
A level of protection is afforded to individuals because the routine use must be published in the
Several commenters expressed concerns that this system of records could create Privacy Act issues. Along those lines, one commenter specifically questioned the protections afforded employees when data is released under one or more of the exemptions identified in notice's the SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT section. While system exemptions from certain provisions of the Privacy Act have been identified in this notice, those provisions are allowed by and used following the Privacy Act; they do not revise the Act. Further, it was recognized in the OMB Privacy Act Implementation Guide, published in the
Two other commenters stated that the notice does not provide any provisions or processes regarding any final disposition of employee personal information (PII) once it has been disclosed to other agencies, entities, or persons. This comment goes beyond the requirements of the Privacy Act.
More than one commenter submitted the view that the routine uses listed in this notice may result in matching programs as described in 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(8). Further, commenters added that if the Department engages in any matching program, it must follow matching program requirements outlined in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o). The Department recognizes the concerns commenters may have about matching programs with respect to this system of records and would like to assure those commenters that should the Department engage in matching programs as defined by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, Public Law 100-503 (“Computer Matching Act”), it will follow applicable procedural requirements. The Computer Matching Act, which amended the Privacy Act, establishes procedural safeguards affecting agencies' use of Privacy Act records when conducting certain types of computer matching programs. These procedures ensure the integrity, privacy, and verification of data used in computerized matching operations, and the Department intends to fully comply with these procedures should it engage in matching programs covered by the Computer Matching Act.
Multiple commenters requested that the Department work in collaboration with unions to create a more useful and less intrusive monitoring system of records. The Department has proposed to the Labor Management Forum Members, to hold a meeting(s) to discuss the appropriate process for access, reviewing and acting upon data collected through an electronic process. Those meetings should begin in early FY 16. In the view of the same commenters, the Department should provide notice and allow bargaining under Federal Services-Labor Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101-7135. The issuance of this notice by the Department is a matter of compliance with the Privacy Act and in no way interferes with labor's right to bargain over matters that relate to a change in working conditions.
In the view of one of the commenters, “the Department failed to make any attempt to notify its labor partners of these proposed changes.” In order to address any concerns with notification, the Department extended the comment period for this SORN so that labor unions had ample time to submit comments.
One commenter wondered if the data expected to be obtained through COMMERCE/DEPT-25 was worth the enormous investment of time in labor-management negotiation, Congressional review, and potential negative response from Department employees over such a program. Through a variety of methods, the Department already collects employee data. This SORN ensure employees understand the system of records and the means through which
Several commenters conveyed their concerns about data security regarding this system of records, especially in light of the recent OPM data breaches in which millions of current and former Federal employees' records were compromised. One of those commenters put forth that while the notice listed safeguards for the system, “it was unclear whether the data would be encrypted.” Another commenter raised concerns about identity theft and the potential use of data for unintended purposes that increases risks and reduce privacy protections, especially in the context of data aggregated in one database. The Department recognizes these concerns and is applying lessons learned from recent high-profile cyber events. As with all Department IT systems, the appropriate FISMA controls, specifically those regarding encryption, will be applied based upon the security categorization of the system and the data contained within the system. The Department has taken the potential risk related to data aggregation into consideration with respect to this system of records. With this in mind, the Department has applied and will continue to apply all appropriate FISMA controls based upon the security categorization of a system.
More than one commenter suggested that the Department provided insufficient [business] justification for this system of records in the Purposes section. The Department disagrees with this suggestion. As articulated in the PURPOSES section, this notice is intended to ensure protection of Department assets.
One commenter suggested that the system of records should exclude home telephone numbers because “the connection of home telephone to the purposes stated in the notice is unexplained and unclear.” While this notice is intended to let employees know what information “may” be collected and what possible use of that information exists, the collection of a “home” telephone number for this system of records is not a mandatory requirement and as such the individuals have the option of not providing their home telephone number. However, having contact information, such as home telephone number, serves a number of purposes, including but not limited to Continuity of Operations (COOP) activities, telework, and notification of family in the event of an emergency.
The same commenter also submitted that “social security numbers [(SSN] should be excluded and replaced by an employee number.” The commenter said the “connection of [SSN] to the purposes stated in the notice is unexplained and unclear.” The Department has not adopted this suggestion, because the use of SSNs in this system of records is essential due to the various categories of individuals in the system. For instance, government contractors would not have an employee number. SSNs are also necessary for the Department to accurately report employees' earnings, so they get the proper credit towards their social security benefit. Even with the addition of an employee number, the Department would still need to capture the social security number for the reasons stated above.
The Department has considered this comment and to help clarify the meaning of cellular numbers, the term “government and personal” will be added before “cellular telephone number” under the CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM section. It should be noted that the Department collects both personal and government cell numbers, because in many cases employees have dropped land line service, so their cell number is their personal home number. As previously stated, having contact information, such as a telephone number, serves a number of purposes, including but not limited to COOP activities, telework, and notification of family in the event of an emergency.
One commenter suggested that “if a security problem does exist within the Commerce Department and its various Agencies that requires [the] level of attention [identified in this system], consultation with authoritative IT Security professionals on implementing a best-practices solution would seem to be a simpler, more cost-effective, and less intrusive alternative.” The Department appreciates this commenter's view, and it regularly consults with other Government agencies and industry regarding best-practices for the identification, mitigation, and response to cyber related issues and concerns with a view towards improving Departmental capabilities. The Department proactively places emphasis on all phases of the NIST Cyber Security Framework—Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover.
More than one commenter maintained that the descriptors in this notice need to be defined in more detail. For instance, some suggested that more information should be provided for the Purposes, Retrievability, and Record Sources sections. One of the commenters added that more clarity was needed for the RETRIEVABILITY section, specifically for the statement “Information may be retrieved . . . by automated search based on extant indices and automated capabilities . . .” While the Department disagrees with the commenters that the descriptors in this notice need to be defined in more detail within the notice, it does agree that it would be beneficial to create a document explaining SORN descriptors. As a way to provide explanations about the different sections of a SORN, the Department has produced a fact sheet about SORN descriptors, which will be made available on its public Web site under the Office of Privacy and Open Government Web page at
One of the same commenters suggested that a plain language document should be provided that discusses this notice and its relationship to the Privacy Act. The Department agrees with the commenter that is would be beneficial to create a document explaining this notice and its relationship to the Privacy Act. As a start to providing the type of information requested, the Department has produced a fact sheet about SORN COMMERCE/DEPT-25, which will be made available on its public Web site under the Office of Privacy and Open Government Web page at
In the view of another commenter, this notice did not provide an indication of “how long information is retained and how that duration relates to the proposed uses.” The Department notes that every SORN, including this one, contains a RETENTION AND DISPOSAL section, which describes the policies and guidelines in place with regard to the retention and destruction of records in this system.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Commerce amends the Privacy Act System of Records: “COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System,” with the minor change as follows:
To help clarify the meaning of cellular numbers under the CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM section, the term “government and personal” will be added before the language “cellular telephone number”.
At the request of the applicant, a public hearing will be held on the application for additional production authority submitted by The Coleman Company, Inc., for activity within Subzone 119I in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota (80 FR 49986, 8-18-2015). The Commerce examiner will hold the public hearing on December 3, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Hoover Building, Room 3407, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Interested parties should indicate their intent to participate in the hearing and provide a summary of their remarks (submitted to
The comment period for the case referenced above will be extended through January 4, 2016. Rebuttal comments may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period, until January 19, 2016. Submissions (signed original and one electronic copy) shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21013, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002.
For further information, contact Pierre Duy at
The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on November 19, 2015, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.
OPEN SESSION:
1. Opening Remarks and Introduction.
2. Remarks from BIS senior management.
3. Report from working groups: Composite Working Group, Biological Working Group, Pump and Valves Working Group.
4. Report on regime-based activities.
5. Public Comments and New Business.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on November 18, 2015, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Status reports by working group chairs.
3. Public comments and Proposals.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting.
Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 3, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan.
Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3148.
Section 703(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in CVD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A) that “the alleged countervailable subsidy” is inconsistent with the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement of the World Trade Organization, and (B) that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in AD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A)(i) That there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) that the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 19 CFR 351.206 provides that imports must increase by at least 15 percent during the “relatively short period” to be considered “massive” and defines a “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (
To determine whether an alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, in accordance with section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department considered the evidence currently on the record of the five CVD investigations. Specifically, as determined in our initiation checklists, the following subsidy programs, alleged in the Petitions and supported by information reasonably available to Petitioners, appear to be either export contingent or contingent upon the use of domestic goods over imported goods, which would render them inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.
•
Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that there are alleged subsidies in each CVD investigation inconsistent with the SCM agreement.
In order to determine whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department generally considers current or previous AD orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders imposed by other countries with regard to imports of the same merchandise. The Department has previously issued an AD order on CORE
To determine whether importers knew or should have known that exporters were selling at less than fair value, we typically consider the magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in petitions.
To determine whether importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury, we typically consider the preliminary injury determinations of the International Trade Commission (ITC).
In addition, the Department has relied on massive imports and high dumping margins as factors indicating importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury.
In determining whether there are “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to sections 703(e)(1)(B) and 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (
Based on evidence provided by Petitioners, the Department finds that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(i), importers, exporters or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the filing of the petition, that a proceeding was likely. Specifically, the Department concludes that the factual information provided by Petitioners indicates that by March 2015, importers, exporters or producers had reason to believe that proceedings were likely. Among the documents Petitioners provided to support their claim of so-called “early knowledge,” the Department finds the following particularly relevant.
• On March 10, 2015, Steel Market Update acknowledged and responded to an influx of “recent” inquiries from
• On March 26, 2015, American Metal Market issued a press release stating that nearly 70 percent of industry participants expected cold-rolled and CORE steel cases to be filed in 2015.
• On March 27, 2015, the
• On March 30, 2015, Barron's published analysis by Credit Suisse concluding U.S. steel industry officials had “no intention of delay” and would pursue trade remedies as soon as possible. The article states that the U.S. industry would not pursue safeguard actions, but instead would pursue AD/CVD remedies focused on hot-rolled coil, cold-rolled coil, and CORE steel products.
While additional information presented in Petitioners' exhibits indicate rumors of trade cases had been circulating as far back as 2014,
Thus, in order to determine whether there has been a massive surge in imports for each cooperating mandatory respondent, the Department compared the total volume of shipments from March 2015 through September 2015 (all months for which data was available) with the preceding seven-month period of August 2014 through February 2015. For “all others,” the Department compared Global Trade Atlas (GTA) data for the period March through August (the last month for which GTA data is currently available) with the proceeding six-month period of September 2014 through February 2015.
Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of corrosion-resistant steel products shipped by certain producers/exporters. Our findings are summarized as follows.
We will issue final determinations concerning critical circumstances when we issue our final subsidy and less-than-fair-value determinations. All interested parties will have the opportunity to address these determinations in case briefs to be submitted after completion of the preliminary subsidies and less than fair value determinations.
In accordance with sections 703(f) and 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determinations.
In accordance with sections 703(e)(2), because we have preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports exported by certain producers and exporters, if we make an affirmative preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies have been provided to these same producers/exporters at above
In accordance with sections 733(e)(2), because we have preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports exported by certain producers and exporters, if we make an affirmative preliminary determination that sales at less than fair value have been made by these same producers/exporters at above
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on large residential washers (LRWs) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) to correct a ministerial error. The period of review (POR) is August 3, 2012, through January 31, 2014.
David Goldberger or Reza Karamloo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-4470, respectively.
On September 8, 2015, the Department issued the final results of the administrative review of the AD order on LRWs from Korea.
In the
The products covered by the order are all large residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Korea. The products are currently classifiable under subheadings 8450.20.0040 and 8450.20.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.
Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any similar type of unintentional error which the
In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the
As a result of correcting this ministerial error, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for LGE for the period August 3, 2012, through January 31, 2014:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the amended final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the amended final results of this administrative review.
For those sales where LGE reported the entered value of its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
For Daewoo's and Samsung's U.S. sales, we based the assessment rate assigned to the corresponding entries on the weighted-average dumping margins listed in the
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of amended final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for LGE will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the amended final results of this administrative review, as shown above; (2) the cash deposit rates for Daewoo and Samsung will continue to be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b).
These amended final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on large residential washers (LRWs) from Mexico to correct ministerial errors. The period of review (POR) is August 3, 2012, through January 31, 2014.
Brian Smith or Brandon Custard, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-1823, respectively.
On September 8, 2015, the Department issued the final results of the administrative review of the AD order on LRWs from Mexico.
Based on our analysis of the allegation, we determined that we made two ministerial errors with respect to currency conversions related to certain movement expenses incurred on third country sales.
In the
The products covered by the order are all large residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Mexico. The products are currently classifiable under subheadings 8450.20.0040 and 8450.20.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.
Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” As discussed above, we analyzed the ministerial error allegation and determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made ministerial errors in our calculation of Electrolux's margin in the
In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the
As a result of correcting this ministerial error, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period August 3, 2012, through January 31, 2014:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the
For Electrolux, the Department calculated
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Electrolux which it did not know were destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or companies involved in the transaction.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of amended final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Electrolux will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the amended final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 36.52 percent, the all-others rate determined in the LTFV investigation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b).
These amended final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on barium chloride from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty order.
Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.
On August 27, 1984, the Department published the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of barium chloride from the PRC.
On May 1, 2015, the Department initiated the fourth five-year (“sunset”) review of the AD order on barium chloride from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”).
The merchandise covered by the order is barium chloride, a chemical compound having the formulas BaCl2 or BaCl2-2H2O, currently classifiable under item number 2827.39.45.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD order on barium chloride from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the order will be the date of publication in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of Letters of Authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that Letters of Authorization (LOA) have been issued to the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) for the take of marine mammals incidental to fisheries research conducted in multiple specified geographical regions.
Effective from October 30, 2015, through October 29, 2020.
The LOAs and supporting documentation are available on the Internet at:
Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
On April 25, 2013, we received an adequate and complete request from SWFSC for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to fisheries research activities. On February 13, 2015 (80 FR 8166), we published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
SWFSC conducts fisheries research using pelagic trawl gear used at various levels in the water column, pelagic longlines with multiple hooks, bottom-contact trawls, and other gear. If a marine mammal interacts with gear deployed by SWFSC, the outcome could potentially be Level A harassment, serious injury (
The SWFSC conducts fisheries research surveys in the California Current Ecosystem (CCE), the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP), and the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Ecosystem (AMLR). As required by the MMPA, SWFSC's request was considered separately for each specified geographical region, and three separate LOAs have been issued. In the CCE, SWFSC is authorized to take individuals of seventeen species by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality (M/SI + Level A) and of 34 species by Level B harassment. In the ETP, SWFSC is authorized to take individuals of eleven species by M/SI + Level A and of 31 species by Level B harassment. In the AMLR, SWFSC is authorized to take individuals of seventeen species by Level B harassment. No takes by M/SI + Level A are anticipated in the AMLR.
We have issued LOAs to SWFSC authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to fishery research activities, as described above. Take of marine mammals will be minimized through implementation of the following mitigation measures: (1) Implementation of a “move-on” rule in certain circumstances that is expected to reduce the potential for physical interaction with marine mammals; (2) use of a marine mammal excluder device in certain trawl nets; and (3) use of acoustic deterrent devices on certain trawl nets. Additionally, the rule includes an adaptive management component that allows for timely modification of mitigation or monitoring measures based on new information, when appropriate. The SWFSC will submit reports as required.
Based on these findings and the information discussed in the preamble to the final rule, the activities described under these LOAs will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stock for subsistence uses.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of intent; request for applications.
NMFS announces its request for applications for the 2016 shark research fishery from commercial shark fishermen with directed or incidental shark limited access permits. The shark research fishery allows for the collection of fishery-dependent and biological data for future stock assessments and to meet the research objectives of the Agency. The only commercial vessels authorized to land sandbar sharks are those participating in the shark research fishery. Shark research fishery permittees may also land other large coastal sharks (LCS), small coastal sharks (SCS), and pelagic sharks. Commercial shark fishermen who are interested in participating in the shark research fishery need to submit a completed Shark Research Fishery Permit Application in order to be considered.
Shark Research Fishery Applications must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time, on December 7, 2015.
Please submit completed applications to the HMS Management Division at:
•
•
•
For copies of the Shark Research Fishery Permit Application, please write to the HMS Management Division at the address listed above, call (301) 427-8503 (phone), or fax a request to (301) 713-1917. Copies of the Shark Research Fishery Application are also available at the HMS Web site at
Karyl Brewster-Geisz or Guý DuBeck, at (301) 427-8503 (phone) or (301) 713-1917 (fax) or Delisse Ortiz at 240-681-9037.
The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
The shark research fishery was established, in part, to maintain time series data for stock assessments and to meet NMFS' research objectives. Since the shark research fishery was established in 2008, the research fishery has allowed for: The collection of fishery-dependent data for current and future stock assessments; the operation of cooperative research to meet NMFS' ongoing research objectives; the collection of updated life-history information used in the sandbar shark (and other species) stock assessment; the collection of data on habitat preferences that might help reduce fishery interactions through bycatch mitigation; evaluation of the utility of the mid-Atlantic closed area on the recovery of dusky sharks and collection of hook-timer and pop-up satellite archival tag (PSAT) information to determine at-vessel and post-release mortality of dusky sharks; and collection of sharks to determine the weight conversion factor from dressed weight to whole weight.
The shark research fishery allows selected commercial fishermen the opportunity to earn revenue from selling additional sharks, including sandbar sharks. Only the commercial shark fishermen selected to participate in the shark research fishery are authorized to land sandbar sharks subject to the sandbar quota available each year. The base quota is 90.7 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw), although this number may be reduced in the event of overharvests, if any. The selected shark research fishery permittees will also be allowed to land other LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks per any restrictions established on their shark research fishery permit. Generally, the shark research fishery permits are valid only for the calendar year for which they are issued.
The specific 2016 trip limits and number of trips per month will depend on the availability of funding, number of selected vessels, the availability of observers, the available quota, and the objectives of the research fishery and will be included in the permit terms at time of issuance. The number of participants in the research fishery
In the beginning of the 2015 fishing season, NMFS split the sandbar and LCS research fishery quotas equally among selected participants, with each vessel allocated 13.3 mt dw of sandbar shark research fishery quota and 5.7 mt dw of other LCS research fishery quota. On August 18, 2015, NMFS implemented Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (80 FR 50074; Amendment 6) which, among other things, established a new base annual quota for the sandbar shark research fishery as 90.7 mt dw (199,943 lb dw). To account for the lower sandbar shark quota, NMFS revised the equal allocation of every participating vessel in the shark research fishery to 80 percent of their current allocation minus their landings up until Amendment 6 was implemented. NMFS also established a regional dusky bycatch limit where once three or more dusky sharks were caught dead in any of five designated regions across the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic through the entire year, any shark research fishery permit holder in that region was not able to soak their gear for longer than 3 hours. If, after the change in soak time, there were three or more additional dusky shark interactions (alive or dead) observed, shark research fishery permit holders were not able to make a trip in that region for the remainder of the year, unless otherwise permitted by NMFS. There were slightly different measures established for shark research fishery participants in the mid-Atlantic shark closed area in order to allow NMFS observers to place satellite archival tags on dusky sharks and collect other scientific information on dusky sharks while also minimizing any dusky shark mortality.
Participants were also required to keep any dead sharks, unless they were a prohibited species, in which case they were required to release them. If the regional non-blacknose SCS, blacknose, and/or pelagic shark management group quotas were closed, then the shark research fishery permit holder fishing in the closed region had to discard all of the species from the closed management groups regardless of condition. Any sharks, except prohibited species or closed management groups (
In order to participate in the shark research fishery, commercial shark fishermen need to submit a completed Shark Research Fishery Application by the deadline noted above (see
Each year, the research objectives are developed by a shark board, which is comprised of representatives within NMFS, including representatives from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) Panama City Laboratory, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Narragansett Laboratory, the Southeast Regional Office Protected Resources Division, and the HMS Management Division. The research objectives for 2016 are based on various documents, including the 2012 Biological Opinion for the Continued Authorization of the Atlantic Shark Fisheries and the Federal Authorization of a Smoothhound Fishery, the 2010/2011 U.S. South Atlantic blacknose, U.S Gulf of Mexico blacknose, sandbar, and dusky sharks stock assessments, and the 2012 U.S. Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark stock assessment. The 2016 research objectives are:
• Collect reproductive, length, sex, and age data from sandbar and other sharks throughout the calendar year for species-specific stock assessments;
• Monitor the size distribution of sandbar sharks and other species captured in the fishery;
• Continue on-going tagging shark programs for identification of migration corridors and stock structure using dart and/or spaghetti tags;
• Maintain time-series of abundance from previously derived indices for the shark bottom longline observer program;
• Sample fin sets (
• Acquire fin-clip samples of all shark and other species for genetic analysis;
• Attach satellite archival tags to endangered smalltooth sawfish to provide information on critical habitat and preferred depth, consistent with the requirements listed in the take permit issued under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act to the SEFSC observer program;
• Attach satellite archival tags to prohibited dusky and other sharks, as needed, to provide information on daily and seasonal movement patterns, and preferred depth;
• Evaluate hooking mortality and post-release survivorship of dusky, hammerhead, blacktip, and other sharks using hook-timers and temperature-depth recorders;
• Evaluate the effects of controlled gear experiments in order to determine the effects of potential hook changes to prohibited species interactions and fishery yields;
• Examine the size distribution of sandbar and other sharks captured throughout the fishery including in the Mid-Atlantic shark time/area closure off the coast of North Carolina from January 1 through July 31; and
• Develop allometric and weight relationships of selected species of sharks (
Shark Research Fishery Permit Applications will be accepted only from commercial shark fishermen who hold a current directed or incidental shark limited access permit. While incidental permit holders are welcome to submit an application, to ensure that an appropriate number of sharks are landed to meet the research objectives for this year, NMFS will give priority to directed permit holders as recommended by the shark board. As such, qualified incidental permit holders will be selected only if there are not enough qualified directed permit holders to meet research objectives.
The Shark Research Fishery Permit Application includes, but is not limited to, a request for the following information: Type of commercial shark permit possessed; past participation and availability in the commercial shark fishery (not including sharks caught for display); past involvement and compliance with HMS observer programs per 50 CFR 635.7; past compliance with HMS regulations at 50 CFR part 635; past and present availability to participate in the shark research fishery year-round; ability to fish in the regions and season requested; ability to attend necessary meetings regarding the objectives and research protocols of the shark research fishery; and ability to carry out the research objectives of the Agency. Preference will be given to those applicants who are willing and available to fish year-round and who affirmatively state that they
The HMS Management Division will review all submitted applications and develop a list of qualified applicants from those applications that are deemed complete. A qualified applicant is an applicant that has submitted a complete application by the deadline (see
Once the selection process is complete, NMFS will notify the selected applicants and issue the shark research fishery permits. The shark research fishery permits will be valid only in calendar year 2016. If needed, NMFS will communicate with the shark research fishery permit holders to arrange a captain's meeting to discuss the research objectives and protocols. NMFS held mandatory captain's meetings before observers were placed on vessels in 2013 (78 FR 14515; March 6, 2013), 2014 (79 FR 12155; March 4, 2014), and 2015 (80 FR 3221; January 22, 2015) and expects to hold one again in 2016. Once the fishery starts, the shark research fishery permit holders must contact the NMFS observer coordinator to arrange the placement of a NMFS-approved observer for each shark research trip.
A shark research fishery permit will only be valid for the vessel and owner(s) and terms and conditions listed on the permit, and, thus, cannot be transferred to another vessel or owner(s). Shark research fishery permit holders must carry a NMFS-approved observer in order to land sandbar sharks. Issuance of a shark research permit does not guarantee that the permit holder will be assigned a NMFS-approved observer on any particular trip. Rather, issuance indicates that a vessel may be issued a NMFS-approved observer for a particular trip, and on such trips, may be allowed to harvest Atlantic sharks, including sandbar sharks, in excess of the retention limits described in 50 CFR 635.24(a). These retention limits will be based on available quota, number of vessels participating in the 2016 shark research fishery, the research objectives set forth by the shark board, the extent of other restrictions placed on the vessel, and may vary by vessel and/or location. When not operating under the auspices of the shark research fishery, the vessel would still be able to land LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks subject to existing retention limits on trips without a NMFS-approved observer.
NMFS annually invites commercial shark permit holders (directed and incidental) to submit an application to participate in the shark research fishery. Permit applications can be found on the HMS Management Division's Web site at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; solicitation of nominations.
NMFS solicits nominations for the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Advisory Panel (AP). NMFS consults with and considers the comments and views of the HMS AP when preparing and implementing Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) or FMP amendments for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish. Nominations are being sought to fill approximately one-third (11) of the seats on the HMS AP for a 3-year appointment. Individuals with definable interests in the recreational and commercial fishing and related industries, environmental community, academia, and non-governmental organizations are considered for membership on the HMS AP.
Nominations must be received on or before December 7, 2015.
You may submit nominations and requests for the Advisory Panel Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures by any of the following methods:
•
•
Craig Cockrell at (301) 427-8503.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
Nomination packages should include:
1. The name of the nominee and a description of his/her interest in HMS or HMS fisheries, or in particular species of sharks, swordfish, tunas, or billfish;
2. Contact information, including mailing address, phone, and email of the nominee;
3. A statement of background and/or qualifications;
4. A written commitment that the nominee shall actively participate in good faith, and consistent with ethics obligations, in the meetings and tasks of the HMS AP; and
5. A list of outreach resources that the nominee has at his/her disposal to communicate HMS issues to various interest groups.
Qualification for membership includes one or more of the following: (1) Experience in HMS recreational fisheries; (2) experience in HMS commercial fisheries; (3) experience in fishery-related industries (
Member tenure will be for 3 years (36 months), with approximately one-third of the members' terms expiring on December 31 of each year. Nominations are sought for terms beginning January 2016 and expiring December 2018.
Nominations for the HMS AP will be accepted to allow representation from commercial and recreational fishing interests, academic/scientific interests, and the environmental/non-governmental organization community, who are knowledgeable about Atlantic HMS and/or Atlantic HMS fisheries. Current representation on the HMS AP, as shown in Table 1, consists of 12 members representing commercial interests, 12 members representing recreational interests, 4 members representing environmental interests, 4 academic representatives, and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Advisory Committee Chairperson. Each HMS AP member serves a 3-year term with approximately one-third of the total number of seats (33) expiring on December 31 of each year. NMFS seeks to fill 3 academic, 3 commercial, 4 recreational organization, and 1 environmental organization vacancies by December 31, 2015. NMFS will seek to fill vacancies based primarily on maintaining the current representation from each of the sectors. NMFS also considers species expertise and representation from the fishing regions (Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean) to ensure the diversity and balance of the AP. Table 1 includes the current representation on the HMS AP by sector, region, and species with terms that are expiring identified in bold. It is not meant to indicate that NMFS will only consider persons who have expertise in the species or fishing regions that are listed. Rather, NMFS will aim toward having as diverse and balanced an AP as possible.
The intent is to have a group that, as a whole, reflects an appropriate and equitable balance and mix of interests given the responsibilities of the HMS AP.
Five additional members on the HMS AP include one member representing each of the following Councils: New England Fishery Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. The HMS AP also includes 22 ex-officio participants: 20 representatives of the coastal states and two representatives of the interstate commissions (the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission).
NMFS will provide the necessary administrative support, including technical assistance, for the HMS AP. However, NMFS will not compensate participants with monetary support of any kind. Depending on availability of funds, members may be reimbursed for travel costs related to the HMS AP meetings.
Meetings of the HMS AP will be held as frequently as necessary but are routinely held twice each year—once in the spring, and once in the fall. The meetings may be held in conjunction with public hearings.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DWHS C01, entitled “Enterprise Support Portal (ESP)” to assist OSD Components in organizational management tasks, manpower-related tasks, and general administrative tasks related to employees by retrieving information from the authoritative sources and storing administrative information within the Enterprise Support Portal. To process network/system account requests, IT service/helpdesk requests, and facilities requests.
Comments will be accepted on or before December 7, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0461.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
Enterprise Support Portal (ESP) (March 5, 2013, 78 FR 14275)
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contain herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto. Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the national Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at:
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Notice to alter a system of records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DWHS P50, entitled “iCompass, Learning Management System (LMS)” to manage and administer a Learning Management System (LMS) for training and development programs; to identify individual training needs; for the purpose of reporting, tracking, assessing and monitoring training events, and DoD FM certifications.
Comments will be accepted on or before December 7, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0461.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on October 30, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
iCompass, Learning Management System (LMS) (July 23, 2013, 78 FR 44100)
Delete entry and replace with “Civilians, military members, and contractors assigned to the following Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) offices: Acquisition Technology and Logistics; U.S. Court of Appeals for Armed Forces (CAAF); DoD Comptroller Office; Deputy Chief Management Officer; Office of Military Commissions; Defense Legal Services Agency/Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals; Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA); Defense Test Resource Management Center (DTRMC); Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA); Intelligence Oversight; Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD) Legislative Affairs; Net Assessment; DoD Chief Information Office; Office of Economic Adjustment; DoD Office of General Counsel; OSD Operation Test & Evaluation; Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) Intelligence; Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; Pentagon Force Protection Agency; OUSD Policy; Department of Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Accounting Agency; Personnel and Readiness; Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; White House Military Office; Washington Headquarters Services (WHS); WHS Federal Voting Assistance Program; WHS Welfare & Recreation Association; and Military and DoD civilian financial managers.”
Delete entry and replace with “Name, DoD identification (DoD ID) number, position title, work phone number, work email address, pay plan, series, grade, organization, supervisor, hire date, course name and course date and time of completed trainings, educational level of civilian employees, and Financial Management (FM) certification level.”
Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. Chapter 41, Government Employees Training Act; 5 CFR part 410, Office of Personnel Management-Training; DoDD 5105.53, Director of Administration and Management (DA&M); DoDD 5110.4, Washington Headquarters Services (WHS); and DoDI 1300.26, Operation of the DoD Financial Management Certification Program.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3) as follows:
If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at:
Delete entry and replace with “Program Manager, Washington Headquarters Services, Human Resource Directorate (HRD)/Transparency and Tools Division (TTD), 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3200.”
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of Partially Closed Meeting.
The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors will meet to make such inquiry, as the Board shall deem necessary, into the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Naval Academy. The executive session of this meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on December 7, 2015, will include discussions of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishment proceedings involving midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade; the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. For this
The open session of the meeting will be held on December 7, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. The executive session held from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will be the closed portion of the meeting.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD. The meeting will be handicap accessible.
Lieutenant Commander Eric Madonia, USN, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, (410) 293-1503.
This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The executive session of the meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on December 7, 2015, will consist of discussions of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishments involving midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to, individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade. The discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. Accordingly, the Department of the Navy/Assistant for Administration has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because the discussions during the executive session from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will be concerned with matters protected under sections 552b(c)(5), (6), and (7) of title 5, United States Code.
80 FR 62524 (October 16, 2015).
9 a.m.-12:15 p.m., November 10, 2015.
On page 62524, in the second column, change the
Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.
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
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Transco to Charleston Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC (DCG) in Aiken, Charleston, Dillon, Dorchester, Greenwood, Laurens, Newberry, and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before November 30, 2015.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on September 2, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF15-29-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF15-29-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend one of the public scoping meetings its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows.
You may attend at any time during the scoping meeting. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff, but you will be provided information about the FERC process. Commission staff will be available to take verbal comments. Representatives of DCG will be present to answer questions about its planned project.
Comments will be recorded by a stenographer and transcripts will be placed into the project docket and made available for public viewing on FERC's eLibrary system (see page 7 “Additional Information” for instructions on using eLibrary). We believe it is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically
Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 1.
The planned project would provide 80,000 dekatherms of natural gas per day of firm transportation service that has been fully subscribed by three customers.
The Transco to Charleston Project would consist of the following facilities:
• Approximately 55 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline in Spartanburg, Laurens, Newberry, and Greenwood Counties (Moore to Chappells pipeline);
• approximately 5 miles of 4-inch-diameter pipeline in Dillon County (Dillon pipeline);
• installation of two new 1,400-horsepower (hp) compressor units at the existing Moore Compressor Station in Spartanburg County;
• construction of a new 3,150-hp compressor station (Dorchester Compressor Station) in Dorchester County;
• conversion of an existing 1,050-hp compressor unit from standby to base load at the existing Southern Compressor Station in Aiken County;
• upgrades to the existing Charleston Town Border Station in Charleston County; and
• associated pipeline support facilities (metering and regulating stations, launcher and receiver assemblies, valves, and pipeline interconnects).
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 2.
Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 781.6 acres of land for the pipelines and 28.9 acres of land for the aboveground facilities. Following construction, DCG would maintain about 488.0 acres for permanent operation of the project's pipelines and 12.9 acres for the aboveground facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 6 percent of the planned Moore to Chappells pipeline route and 28 percent of the Dillon pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 3).
Once DCG files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures 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. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing 1,016-foot-long, 76-foot-high Delta dam, owned by the New York State Canal Corporation; (2) an existing impoundment having a surface area of 2,700 acres and a storage capacity of 63,200 acre-feet at the spillway crest elevation of 551.37 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988; (3) a new 40-foot-diameter cylindrical powerhouse containing one turbine-generator unit with a total installed capacity of 7.4 megawatts; (4) a new 15,000-foot-long, 34.5-kilovolt underground transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would generate about 14,100 megawatt-hours of electricity annually.
m. 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
n. 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 a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests 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 protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” or “COMPETING APPLICATION;” (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. 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.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On September 10, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued notice of a proposed restricted service list for the preparation of a programmatic agreement for managing properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places at each of the following proposed projects: (1) Beverly Lock & Dam Water Power Project No. 13404; (2) Devola Lock & Dam Water Power Project No. 13405; (3) Malta Lock & Dam Water Power Project No. 13406; (4) Lowell Lock & Dam Water Power Project No. 13407; (5) Philo Lock & Dam Water Power Project No. 13408; (6) and Rokeby Lock & Dam Water Power Project No. 13411. Rule 2010(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2010(d)(1) (2014), provides for the establishment of such a list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency. Under Rule 385.2010(d)(4), persons on the official service list are to be given notice of any proposal to establish a restricted service list and an opportunity to show why they should also be included on the restricted service list or why a restricted service list should not be established.
On October 29, 2015, Valincia Darby, Regional Environmental Protection Assistant for the Department of the Interior, requested to be added to the restricted service list and be included as a consulting party in the section 106 of
Under Rule 385.2010(d)(2), any restricted service list will contain the names of each person on the official service list, or the person's representative, who, in the judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, is an active participant with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established. Valincia Darby has identified an interest in issues relating to the management of historic properties at the Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power Project, Devola Lock and Dam Water Power Project, Malta/McConnelsville Lock and Dam Water Power Project, Lowell Lock and Dam Water Power Project, Philo Lock and Dam Water Power Project, and Rokeby Lock and Dam Water Power Project. Therefore, she and her representatives will be added to the restrictive service list.
Accordingly, the restricted service list issued on September 10, 2015, for Projects Nos. 13404, 13405, 12406, 13407, 13408, and 13411 is revised to add the following person: Valincia Darby or representative, Regional Environmental Protection Assistant, Department of the Interior, OEPC, 200 Chestnut Street, Rm 244, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
a. Project Names and Numbers: Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13404, Devola Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13405, Malta/McConnelsville Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13406, Lowell Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13407, Philo Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13408, and Rokeby Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13411 (Muskingum River Projects).
b. Date and Time of Meeting: Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
c.
d. Purpose of Meeting: To discuss the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) responses to Commission staff's determinations of effect for federally listed species described in the Multi-Project Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License, for the proposed Muskingum River Projects, issued on August 27, 2015, and Commission staff's letter to the FWS, issued on October 16, 2015.
e. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please call Aaron Liberty at (202) 502-6862 by Tuesday, November 12, 2015, to RSVP and to receive specific instructions on how to participate.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Application to be effective 10/13/2015.
Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on October 29, 2015, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(h) and section 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, City of Osceola Arkansas (Osceola or Complainant) filed a complaint against Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI) and Entergy Services, Inc. (collectively Respondents). In the Complaint Osceola seeks an order and asserts that the Commission should compel Respondent to adhere to the rates, terms and conditions of the Power Coordination, Interchange and Transmission Service Agreement between EAI and Osceola. Complainant contends that EAI charged Osceola in violation of that agreement and in violation of the filed rate doctrine, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of corporate officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that 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:
As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on October 8, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Staff will hold a technical conference on November 12, 2015, at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The purpose of the technical conference is to understand PJM's application of its Order No. 1000-compliant
The Commission's orders on PJM's compliance with the local transmission planning requirements of both Order No. 890
In its Order No. 1000 compliance proceedings, PJM stated that individual PJM Transmission Owners do not conduct separate local transmission planning and that local transmission and regional transmission planning are fully integrated in PJM's regional transmission planning process.
Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton) and the PJM Transmission Owners also addressed the PJM local transmission planning process in their rehearing requests submitted in Docket No. ER15-1387-001 proceeding. Dayton stated that local transmission projects are included as part of PJM's annual regional transmission planning process, but not because PJM has had any significant role in their design or planning, as local transmission projects are designed and developed by the local transmission owner.
PJM Transmission Owners stated that all transmission projects proposed and considered in the PJM regional transmission plan are not necessarily selected for the purposes of regional cost allocation and are included in the RTEP to address various issues and needs, some local and some regional.
Given the background provided herein, participants should be prepared to discuss the following:
1. The process through which local transmission planning is conducted, from the identification of transmission needs through the selection of transmission projects.
a. How do PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners define the terms transmission owner local planning criteria, local transmission need, and local transmission project?
b. How and when are local transmission needs identified? How and when can stakeholders comment on the identified local transmission needs?
c. How do the local transmission planning and regional transmission planning processes in PJM interact? Are there two distinct, separate processes, or are they one in the same? If there are two separate processes, at what point are the transmission owner local planning criteria and/or transmission project proposals to address those local planning criteria incorporated into the regional transmission planning process? How does PJM decide which local transmission needs are integrated into the PJM regional transmission planning process?
d. What is the relationship between the transmission needs proposed in the Subregional RTEP Committees' Local Plans with the transmission needs incorporated into the regional transmission planning process?
e. What method is used to disclose to stakeholders the criteria, assumptions, and data that underlie local transmission planning? How and when can stakeholders provide input and offer suggested transmission projects to address local transmission needs?
f. How and when do individual PJM Transmission Owners identify transmission projects meant to address local transmission needs?
g. What analysis does PJM perform on transmission projects proposed by PJM Transmission Owners and proposed by stakeholders to address local transmission needs?
h. What is PJM's role in developing, evaluating, and selecting transmission project proposals to address transmission owner local planning criteria? What are the PJM Transmission Owners' roles in developing, evaluating, and selecting these proposals?
i. Is the process through which PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners develop, evaluate, and select transmission project proposals to address transmission owner local planning criteria different from the process through which they develop, evaluate, and select transmission project proposals to address NERC or Regional Entity reliability standards?
j. What defined categories of transmission facilities are currently included in a PJM RTEP? Are there any defined categories of transmission projects currently included in the PJM RTEP that PJM does not consider to be selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation? If
2. The process through which Supplemental Projects become transmission projects eligible for selection in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation.
a. If a Supplemental Project is transitioned into a Required Transmission Enhancement that is eligible for regional cost allocation in PJM's RTEP, does it undergo the same analysis as a transmission project first proposed as a Subregional RTEP Project?
b. How are Supplemental Projects distinguished from transmission projects that address transmission owner local planning criteria?
3. The proposal window process for transmission project proposals intended to address transmission owner local planning criteria.
a. Except for Immediate-need Reliability Projects, does PJM currently open proposal windows for all transmission needs identified in its regional transmission planning process, including those needs that arise as a result of local transmission needs and transmission owner local planning criteria?
b. If PJM does not currently open proposal windows for all transmission needs identified in PJM's regional transmission planning process, how does PJM determine whether to open a proposal window for a given transmission need?
c. If a PJM Transmission Owner proposes an upgrade to its existing transmission facilities to address a local transmission need, does PJM open a proposal window to solicit other possible solutions to address the local transmission need that would be addressed by the upgrade?
d. If a PJM Transmission Owner proposes a new 500 kV transmission facility to address a local transmission need, does PJM currently open a proposal window to solicit other possible solutions to address the local transmission need that would be addressed by PJM Transmission Owner's proposed new 500 kV transmission facility?
The technical conference will be led by Commission staff, and is open to the public. Pre-registration through the Commission's Web site (
The technical conference will not be transcribed. However, there will be a free audio cast of the conference. Anyone wishing to listen to the meeting should send an email to Sarah McKinley at
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
Following the technical conference, the Commission will consider post-technical conference comments submitted on or before December 10, 2015. Reply comments will be due on or before January 7, 2016. The written comments will be included in the formal record of the proceeding, which, together with the record developed to date, will form the basis for further Commission action.
For more information about this technical conference, please contact Katherine Scott, 202-502-6495,
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:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-725 [Certification of Electric Reliability Organization; Procedures for Electric Reliability Standards]. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due December 7, 2015.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0225 or collection number (FERC-725), should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC15-12-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Commission implements its responsibilities through 18 CFR part 39. Without the FERC-725 information, the Commission, ERO, and Regional Entities will not have the data needed to determine whether sufficient and appropriate measures are being taken to ensure the reliability of the nation's electric grid.
On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, Commission staff will hold a technical conference to discuss the concerns of Alcoa Inc. and Alcoa Power Generating Inc. related to navigation at Newburgh Hydro, LLC's proposed Newburgh Hydroelectric Project No. 12962.
The technical conference will begin at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The conference will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission headquarters building located at 888 1st Street NE., Washington, DC, and will include teleconference capabilities.
All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate. There will be no transcript of the conference, but a summary of the meeting will be prepared for the project record. If you are interested in participating in the meeting you must contact Emily Carter at (202) 502-6512 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of information collection request renewal.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this document announces that Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2016. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, the EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.
Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0333 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional information on submitting comments, see the
Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address:
Should you choose to submit information that you claim to be CBI, clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For information that you claim to be CBI in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the mail or hand/courier delivery address listed above, attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0333. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
How can I access the docket and/or submit comments? The EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0333, which is available for online viewing at
Use
What information is EPA particularly interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
What should I consider when I prepare my comments for the EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under
7. To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to? [Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0333.]
Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are suppliers of certain products that will emit GHG when released, combusted, or oxidized, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, including aircraft engine manufacturers; facilities in certain industrial categories that emit greenhouse gases; and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
Title: Information Collection Request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.
ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2300.17
ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on May 31, 2016. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the
Abstract: In response to the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Pub. L. 110-161) and under authority of the Clean Air Act, the EPA finalized the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule (GHG Reporting Rule) (74 FR 56260; October 30, 2009). The GHG Reporting Rule, which became effective on December 29, 2009, establishes reporting requirements for certain large facilities and suppliers. It does not require control of greenhouse gases. Instead, it requires that sources emitting above certain threshold levels of (CO
Subsequent rules have promulgated requirements for additional facilities, suppliers, and mobile sources; provided clarification and corrections to existing requirements; finalized confidentiality business information (CBI) determinations, amended recordkeeping requirements, and implemented an alternative verification approach. Collectively, the GHG Reporting Rule and its associated rulemakings are referred to as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).
The purpose for this ICR is to renew and revise the GHG Reporting Rule ICR to update and consolidate the burdens and costs imposed by all of the current ICRs under the GHGRP.
Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.24 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the EPA's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
1. Estimated total number of potential respondents: 9,899.
2. Frequency of response: Annual, quarterly.
3. Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 72.
4. Estimated total annual burden hours: 903,871 hours. This includes estimated total respondent hours of 878,911 hours and estimated total EPA hours of 24,960 hours.
5. Estimated total annual costs: $113,837,441. This includes an estimated cost of $38,477,161 for capital investment as well as maintenance and operational costs, an estimated respondent burden cost of $63,360,249, and an estimated EPA cost of $12,000,030.
Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval? There is a decrease of 102,121 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the last ICR renewal. This change in burden reflects an adjustment in the number of respondents from projected to actual, an adjustment of labor rates and capital costs to reflect 2013 dollars, a re-evaluation of the activities and costs associated with Subparts W and RR, and the addition of new segments and new reporters under Subpart W.
What is the next step in the process for this ICR? The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, the EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft report on the National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA 2011) and opens a 30-day public review and comment period on the draft report. The NWCA 2011 is the first national assessment of the ecological condition of the nation's wetlands. The NWCA 2011 draft report describes the results of a nationwide
Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0667, to the
Gregg Serenbetz, Wetlands Division, Office of Water (4502T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1253; email address:
The
The key goals of the NWCA are to (1) describe the ecological condition of the nation's wetlands and stressors commonly associated with poor condition; (2) collaborate with states and tribes in developing complementary monitoring tools, analytical approaches, and data management technology to aid wetland protection and restoration programs; and (3) advance the science of wetland monitoring and assessment to support wetland management needs. EPA began planning activities for the NWCA in 2006 and engaged with a broad group of stakeholders including state environmental and natural resource agencies, tribes, federal agencies, academia, and other organizations to help inform different aspects of the assessment.
Both tidal and nontidal wetlands were targeted for sampling. To select wetland sites for sampling, EPA used the same digital map of wetland locations that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses in their Wetland Status and Trends program. While not a comprehensive map of all wetlands throughout the U.S., these mapped locations are used to statistically represent the extent of wetlands nationally. Sampling sites for the NWCA were randomly selected from this digital map and distributed based on the prevalence of wetlands across the U.S. using a survey design that ensures the results reflect the full range of wetlands in the target population. Each wetland site was sampled using standardized field protocols to collect ecological data on plants, soil, water chemistry, algae, and wetland stressors. The use of standardized field and laboratory protocols is another key feature of the NWCA and allows the data to be combined to produce a nationally consistent assessment. The results presented in the NWCA 2011 report are based on data from 1,138 wetland sites sampled during the spring and summer of 2011 in the conterminous U.S. (41 sites sampled in Alaska are not included in the national and regional results in the report). The NWCA 2011 report describes the ecological condition of wetlands nationally and in four ecoregions (Coastal Plains, Eastern Mountains and Upper Midwest, Interior Plains, and West) using a biological indicator of condition and several physical, chemical, and biological indicators of stress.
This is the first time a national monitoring study of the ecological condition of wetlands has been conducted. Under the NARS program, studies have been completed for wadeable streams (2004), lakes (2007), rivers and streams (2008-2009), and coastal waters (2010). The release of the NWCA 2011 final report will complete the first full cycle of NARS reports. EPA and our partners plan to continue to assess each of these water body types on a five year rotating basis.
This draft report has undergone external peer review. States and other stakeholders also reviewed and commented on the draft report. The purpose of this action is to solicit public comment on the draft report before finalizing it. EPA is seeking comment on the information contained in the draft report, the reasonableness of the conclusions, and the clarity with which the information is presented. The draft report and other supporting materials may also be viewed and downloaded from EPA's Web site at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 4, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will hold a meeting in the Commission Meeting Room, from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12 Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015.
Walter Johnston, Chief, Electromagnetic Compatibility Division, 202-418-0807;
At the December 9th meeting, the FCC Technological Advisory Council (TAC) will discuss progress on and issues involving its work program agreed to at its initial meeting on April 1, 2015. In addition, it is expected that final recommendations from current work groups will be presented to all TAC members. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many people as possible. However, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Meetings are also broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10414 Polk County Bank, Johnston, IA (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Polk County Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective November 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10112 First Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of First Bank of Kansas City (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective November 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor)
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 2, 2015.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 30, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 2, 2015.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 30, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the evaluation of the progress of CDC partners that receive awards distributed via contracts, grants and cooperative agreements, from the Procurements and Grants Office (PGO). PGO is responsible for the stewardship of these funds while providing excellent, professional services to our partners and stakeholders. Data will be collected for the purpose of evaluating the progress of programmatic activities.
Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0094 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Performance Progress and Evaluation Report (PPER)—Existing Collection in use without an OMB Control Number—Procurements and Grants Office (PGO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Each year, approximately 80% of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) budget is distributed via contracts, grants and cooperative agreements, from the Procurements and Grants Office (PGO) to partners throughout the world to promote health, prevent disease, injury and disability and prepare for new health threats. PGO is responsible for the stewardship of these funds while providing excellent, professional services to our partners and stakeholders.
Currently, CDC uses SF-PPR (a progress report form for Non-Research awards) to collect information semi-annually from Awardees regarding the progress made over specified time periods on CDC funded projects. The SF-PPR (OMB Control Number: 0970-0406, Expiration Date: 10/31/2015) is owned by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This New ICR is being developed by CDC to create a CDC-wide collection tool called the Progress Performance and Evaluation Report (PPER) that will be used to collect data on the progress of CDC Awardees for the purposes of evaluation and to bring the Awardee reporting procedure into compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
The information collected will enable the accurate, reliable, uniform and timely submission to CDC of each Awardee's work plans and progress reports, including strategies, activities and performance measures. The information collected by the PPER is designed to align with, and support the goals outlined for each of the CDC Awardees. Collection and reporting of the information will occur in an efficient, standardized, and user-friendly manner that will generate a variety of routine and customizable reports. The PPER will allow each Awardee to summarize activities and progress towards meeting performance measures and goals over a specified time period specific to each award. CDC will also have the capacity to generate reports that describe activities across multiple Awardees. In addition, CDC will use the information collection to respond to inquiries from HHS, Congress and other stakeholder inquiries about program activities and their impact.
The total estimated burden is 16,000 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed extension of the Laboratory Response Network information collection.
Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0093 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Laboratory Response Network—Extension—(OMB Control No. 0920-0850, expires April 30, 2016), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Laboratory Response Network (LRN) was established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in accordance with Presidential Decision Directive 39, which outlined national anti-terrorism policies and assigned specific missions to Federal departments and agencies. The LRN's mission is to maintain an integrated national and international network of laboratories that can respond to suspected acts of biological, chemical, or radiological threats and other public health emergencies.
When Federal, State and local public health laboratories voluntarily join the LRN, they assume specific responsibilities and are required to provide information to the LRN Program Office at CDC. Each laboratory must submit and maintain complete information regarding the testing capabilities of the laboratory. Biennually, laboratories are required to review, verify and update their testing capability information. Complete testing capability information is required in order for the LRN Program Office to determine the ability of the Network to respond to a biological or chemical threat event. The sensitivity of all information associated with the LRN requires the LRN Program Office to obtain personal information about all individuals accessing the LRN Web site. In addition, the LRN Program Office must be able to contact all laboratory personnel during an event so each laboratory staff member that obtains access to the restricted LRN Web site must provide his or her contact information to the LRN Program Office.
As a requirement of membership, LRN Laboratories must report all biological and chemical testing results to the LRN Program at CDC using a CDC developed software tool called the LRN Results Messenger. This information is essential for surveillance of anomalies, to support response to an event that may involve multiple agencies and to manage limited resources. LRN Laboratories must also participate in and report results for Proficiency Testing Challenges or Validation Studies. LRN Laboratories participate in multiple Proficiency
During a surge event resulting from a bioterrorism or chemical terrorism attack, LRN Laboratories are also required to submit all testing results using LRN Results Messenger. The LRN Program Office requires these results in order to track the progression of a bioterrorism event and respond in the most efficient and effective way possible and for data sharing with other Federal partners involved in the response. The number of samples tested during a response to a possible event could range from 10,000 to more than 500,000 samples depending on the length and breadth of the event. Since there is potentially a large range in the number of samples for a surge event, CDC estimates the annualized burden for this event will be 2,250,000 hours or 625 responses per respondent.
There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden is 2,382,300 hours.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection entitled “Monitoring and Reporting for the Core State Violence and Injury Prevention Program Cooperative Agreement.” CDC will use the information collected to monitor cooperative agreement awardees and to identify challenges to program implementation and achievement of outcomes.
Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0092 by any of the following methods:
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
Monitoring and Reporting for the Core State Violence and Injury Prevention Program Cooperative Agreement—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Unintentional and violence-related injuries and their consequences are the leading causes of death for the first four decades of life, regardless of gender, race, or socioeconomic status. More than 192,000 individuals in the United States die each year as a result of unintentional injuries and violence, and more than 31 million others suffer non-fatal injuries requiring emergency department visits each year. Given these factors, the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) provides an important opportunity for states to advance public health across the lifespan and to reduce health disparities. Support and guidance for these programs have been provided through cooperative agreement funding and technical assistance administered by CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). The goal of this ICR is to collect information needed to monitor cooperative agreement programs funded under the Core State Violence and Injury Prevention Program (Core SVIPP) (CDC-RFA-CE16-1602).
Information to be collected will provide crucial data for program performance monitoring and provide CDC with the capacity to respond in a timely manner to requests for information about the program from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the White House, Congress, and other sources. Awardees will report progress and activity information to CDC on an annual schedule using an Excel-based fillable electronic templates. Each awardee will submit three information collection tools: Annual Progress Report, Evaluation and Performance Management Plan, and Injury Indicator Spreadsheets. In Year 1, each awardee will have additional burden related to initial collection of the reporting tools. Initial population of the tools is a one-time activity, after completing the initial population of the tools, pertinent information only needs to be updated annually for each report.
CDC will use the information collected to monitor each awardee's progress and to identify facilitators and challenges to program implementation and achievement of outcomes. Monitoring allows CDC to determine whether an awardee is meeting performance and goals and to make adjustments in the type and level of technical assistance provided to them, as needed, to support attainment of their performance measures. With the tools, the use of a standard set of data elements, definitions and specifications at all levels will help to improve the quality and comparability of performance information that is received by CDC for multiple awardees and multiple award types by ensuring that the same information is collected on all strategies and performance measures with slightly different areas of emphasis, depending on the awardee type (BASE, Enhanced with 1 Component, or Enhanced 2 Components).
OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation in the information collection is required as a condition of funding. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for a new collection. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public on this ICR during the review and approval period.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before December 7, 2015.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the Information Collection Request Title and document identifier HHS-OS-0990-New-30D for reference.
The Office for Human Research Protections, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, and the Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Minutes of Institutional Review Board (IRB) Meetings: Guidance for Institutions and IRBs.” The draft guidance is intended for institutions and IRBs that are responsible for the review and oversight of human subject research conducted or supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or regulated by FDA. The purpose of the
You can comment on any guidance at any time (21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)). To ensure that we consider your comment on this draft guidance before we begin work on the final version of the guidance, submit either written or electronic comments by January 4, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Janet Donnelly, Office of Good Clinical Practice, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5167, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4187; or Irene Stith-Coleman, Office for Human Research Protections, 1101 Wootton Pkwy., Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-453-6900.
OHRP and FDA are announcing the availability of a draft guidance document entitled “Minutes of Institutional Review Board Meetings: Guidance for Institutions and Institutional Review Boards; Draft Guidance; Availability.” Because IRBs have been cited in OHRP determination letters and FDA warning letters as having inadequate minutes, OHRP and FDA are providing recommendations on the type and amount of information to include in minutes in order to help IRBs meet the regulatory requirements for minutes.
To enhance human subject protection and reduce regulatory burden, OHRP and FDA have been actively working to harmonize the Agencies' regulatory requirements and guidance for human subject research. This draft guidance document was developed as a part of these efforts. OHRP and FDA believe that it will be most helpful to the regulated community to issue a joint draft guidance document which will clearly demonstrate the Agencies' harmonious approach to the topic of preparing and maintaining minutes of IRB meetings.
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 OHRP and FDA on minutes of IRB meetings. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on OHRP, FDA, or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information referenced in this guidance that are related to IRB recordkeeping requirements under 21 CFR 56.115 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0755 and 0910-0130. The collections of information referenced in this guidance that are related to IRB recordkeeping requirements under 45 CFR 46.115 have been approved under OMB control number 0990-0260.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, November 12, 2015, 10:00 a.m. to November 12, 2015, 02:00 p.m., National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the date of the meeting from November 12, 2015 to November 24, 2015. The meeting is closed to the public.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, DHHS.
Notice.
This notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR part 404.7, that the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to Astrocyte Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (“Astrocyte”), a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware and having an office in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to practice the following inventions embodied in the following patent applications: US Provisional Patent Appl. No. 60/176,373 entitled, “Methanocarba cycloalkyl nucleoside analogues,” filed 14 Jan 2000 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-US-01]; Intl. Appl. No. PCT/US01/00981, entitled, “Methanocarba cycloalkyl nucleoside analogues,” filed 12 Jan 2001 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-PCT-02]; Australia Patent No. 2001230913, issued 13 Oct 2005 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-AU-03]; Canada Patent No. 2.397,366, issued 15 Mar 2011 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-CA-04]; European Patent Appl. No. 01903043.6 entitled, filed 12 Jan 2001 [HHS Ref No E-176-1999/0-EP-05]; US Patent No. 7,087,589, issued 8 Aug 2006 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-US-06]; US patent No. 7,790,735, issued 8 Aug 2006 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-US-07]; and Great Britain patent No. 1252160, issued 16 Aug 2006 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-US-08]. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America. The territories included in this license may be worldwide. The field of use may be related to “Use of the patent rights in the development and sale of therapeutics for cerebral trauma, stroke, and neurodegenerative disorders.”
Only written comments or applications for a license (or both) which are received by the Technology Advancement Office of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) on or before November 20, 2015 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, patents, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Patrick McCue, Ph.D., Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, Technology Advancement Office, The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 12A South Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, Telephone: (301) 435-5560; Email:
The technology provides novel nucleoside and nucleotide derivatives that are agonist or antagonists of P1 and P2 receptors and may be useful in the treatment or prevention of various diseases including airway diseases, cancer, cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac ischemia, epilepsy, and Huntington's Disease.
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the NIDDK receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Properly filed competing applications for a license received by the NIDDK in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
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
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant
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:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, PAR15-162: Pilot Clinical Urology, October 22, 2015, 04:00 p.m. to October 22, 2015, 05:00 p.m., Crowne Plaza Washington National Airport, 1489 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. The meeting will start on November 23, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. and end at 3:30 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(a) 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, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications.
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 as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Library of Medicine, 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.
Open: April 7, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Closed: April 7, 2016, 12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Closed: April 8, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
Open: April 8, 2016, 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
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,
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the meetings.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 Literature Selection Technical Review Committee.
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 portions of the meeting devoted to the review and evaluation of journals for potential indexing by the National Library of Medicine will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. Premature disclosure of the titles of the journals as potential titles to be indexed by the National Library of Medicine, the discussions, and the presence of individuals associated with these publications could significantly frustrate the review and evaluation of individual journals.
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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
60-Day notice of Information collection for review; Form No. I-515A; Notice to Student or Exchange Visitor; OMB Control No. 1653-0037.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Committee management; notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will hold a meeting of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) on Friday, November 20, 2015, to discuss issues listed in the “Meeting Agenda” section below. This meeting will be open to the public as stated in the “Summary” section below.
The Committee will meet on Friday, November 20, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. This meeting may end early if all business is completed.
The meeting will be held at TSA Headquarters, 601 12th Street South, Arlington, VA 20598-6028.
We invite your comments on the items listed in the “Meeting Agenda” section below. You may submit comments on these items, identified by the TSA docket number to this action (Docket No. TSA-2011-0008), to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), a government-wide, electronic docket management system, using any one of the following methods:
For other applicable information on the meeting, comment submissions, facilities, or services, see the
Dean Walter, Aviation Security Advisory Committee Designated Federal Official, Transportation Security Administration (TSA-28), 601 South
TSA invites interested persons to participate in this action by submitting written comments, data, or views on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the “Meeting Summary” section below. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from the agenda items to be discussed at the meeting. See
Please identify the docket number at the beginning of your comments. TSA encourages commenters to provide their names and addresses. The most helpful comments reference a specific item of the meeting agenda, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. You may submit comments and material electronically, in person, by mail, or fax as provided under
If you would like TSA to acknowledge receipt of comments submitted by mail, include with your comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you.
TSA will file all comments to our docket address, as well as items sent to the address or email under
Do not submit comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, or SSI to the public regulatory docket. Please submit such comments separately from other comments on the action. Comments containing trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, or SSI should be appropriately marked as containing such information and submitted by mail to the address listed in
TSA will not place comments containing SSI in the public docket and will handle them in accordance with applicable safeguards and restrictions on access. TSA will hold documents containing SSI, confidential business information, or trade secrets in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a note in the public docket explaining that commenters have submitted such documents. TSA may include a redacted version of the comment in the public docket. If an individual requests to examine or copy information that is not in the public docket, TSA will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and DHS's Freedom of Information Act regulation found in 6 CFR part 5.
Please be aware that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any of our dockets by the name of the individual who submitted the comment (or signed the comment, if an association, business, labor union, etc., submitted the comment). You may review the applicable Privacy Act Statement published in the
You may review TSA's electronic public docket on the Internet at
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by—
(1) Searching for the key words “Aviation Security Advisory Committee” on the electronic Federal Docket Management System Web page at
(2) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the
Notice of this meeting is given under sec. (c)(4)(B) of the Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act, 49 U.S.C. 44946. The Aviation Security Advisory Committee is exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). The committee provides advice and recommendations for improving aviation security measures to the Administrator of TSA.
The meeting will be open to the public and will focus on items listed in the “Meeting Agenda” section below. Members of the public, and all non-ASAC members and TSA staff must register in advance with their full name to attend. Due to space constraints the meeting is limited to 75 people, including ASAC members and staff, on a first to register basis. Attendees are required to present government-issued photo identification to verify identity.
In addition, members of the public must make advance arrangements, as stated below, to present oral or written statements specifically addressing issues pertaining to the items listed in the “Meeting Agenda” section below. The public comment period will begin at 3:00 p.m., depending on the meeting progress. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to three minutes. Contact the person listed in the
The Committee will meet to discuss items listed in the agenda below:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before December 7, 2015.
•
•
We will post all comments on
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess barasingha (
The applicant requests a permit to import a live, wild-caught, confiscated female jaguar (
The applicant requests a permit to import hairy rattle weed (
The applicant requests a permit to import a captive-bred female snow leopard (
The applicant requests a permit to import a captive-bred male snow leopard (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Galapagos tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Red siskin (
The applicant requests a permit to import partial skeletons and teeth of eastern gorillas (
The applicant requests a permit to import two male and eight female captive-bred pronghorn peninsular (
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; receipt of permit application.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received, from the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Angeles District (applicant), an application for an enhancement of survival permit for the federally threatened California red-legged frog, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This permit application includes a proposed safe harbor agreement (agreement) between the applicant and the Service. The agreement and permit application are available for public comment.
To ensure we are able to consider your comments, please send them to us by December 7, 2015.
The documents are available on our Web site, at
•
•
•
Eric Morrissette, Senior Biologist, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address above or by telephone at (805) 644-1766.
We have received an application for an enhancement of survival permit for the threatened California red-legged frog (
You may obtain copies of the documents for review by using one of the methods in
Under a safe harbor agreement, participating landowners voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to benefit species listed under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
We have worked with the applicant to develop this proposed agreement for the
The agreement provides for the translocation and reestablishment of the California red-legged frog at the enrolled properties, and the management of its suitable habitat. The proposed duration of the agreement and term of the enhancement of survival permit is 50 years. The agreement fully describes the proposed management activities to be undertaken by the applicant and the net conservation benefits expected to be gained for the California red-legged frog.
Upon approval of this agreement and satisfactory completion of all other applicable legal requirements, and consistent with the Service's Safe Harbor Policy, published in the
Management activities included in the agreement will provide for the translocation and reestablishment of the California red-legged frog and management of its habitat within the enrolled properties. The objective of such activities is to reestablish self-sustaining populations of the California red-legged frog within its historic range in the suitable habitat at the enrolled properties. Take of California red-legged frogs in the form of capture would occur during translocation activities, thereby necessitating take authority under the permit. Take incidental to activities associated with the management of California red-legged frog habitat is unlikely; however, it is possible that in the course of such activities or other lawful activities on the enrolled property, the applicant could incidentally take individual California red-legged frogs, thereby necessitating take authority under the permit.
Baseline conditions at the enrolled properties, as described in the agreement, have been established, consisting of two elements, the current area of suitable habitat for the California red-legged frog and the elevated presence of California red-legged frog populations. Under the agreement, an elevated baseline for the California red-legged frog populations means that, in anticipation that translocation and reestablishment of the California red-legged frog is successful, the populations of California red-legged frogs would remain at the enrolled properties at the end of the agreement term where there currently are no California red-legged frog populations and under other circumstances the baseline for the species presence could be zero. The elevated baseline has been established to aid in reaching recovery objectives for the California red-legged frog by implementing recovery activities with the intent to create and maintain self-sustaining populations of California red-legged frogs at the enrolled properties post-translocation. The applicant must maintain baseline on the enrolled properties in order to receive coverage regarding incidental take of California red-legged frogs. The agreement and requested permit would allow the applicant to return the enrolled property to baseline conditions for habitat, and to the elevated baseline for the California red-legged frog populations, after the end of the term of the agreement and prior to the expiration of the 50-year permit, if so desired by the applicant.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the proposed agreement and permit application are eligible for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Individuals wishing copies of the permit application, copies of our draft Environmental Action Statement, and copies of the agreement, including a map of the proposed permit area, should contact the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
If you wish to comment on the permit application or the agreement, you may submit your comments to one of the addresses listed 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.
We will evaluate this permit application, associated documents, and comments we receive to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act and NEPA regulations. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will sign the proposed agreement and issue an enhancement of
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Act and under implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of an extension of an information collection (1028-0051).
We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This collection is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2016.
You must submit comments on or before January 4, 2016.
You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7197 (fax); or
Elizabeth Lemersal, Earthquake Hazards Program, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 905, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703-648-6716 (phone); or
Research and monitoring findings are essential to fulfilling USGS's responsibility under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act to develop earthquake hazard assessments and recording earthquake activity nationwide. Residents, emergency responders, and engineers rely on the USGS for this accurate and scientifically sound information. The Earthquake Hazards Program funds external investigators to carry out these important activities. In response to our Program Announcements investigators submit proposals for research and monitoring activities on earthquake hazard assessments, earthquake causes and effects, and earthquake monitoring. This information is used as the basis for selection and award of projects meeting the USGS's Earthquake Hazards Program objectives. Final reports of research and monitoring findings are required for each funded proposal; annual progress reports are required for awards of a two- to five-year duration. Final reports are made available to the public at the Web site
We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Proposed supplementary rules.
The New Mexico State Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to establish supplementary rules within public lands in New Mexico.
Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the proposed supplementary rules until January 4, 2016.
You may submit comments by mail, hand-delivery, or electronic mail.
Mail: Office of Law Enforcement, BLM, New Mexico State Office, P.O. Box 27115 Santa Fe, NM 87502-0115.
Hand-delivery: 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Electronic mail:
Jeffery Miller, New Mexico State Chief Ranger, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, NM 87502-0115, at (505) 954-2206, or
You may mail, email, or hand-deliver comments to the New Mexico State Office, at the addresses listed above (See
Comments, including names, street addresses, and other contact information for respondents, will be available for public review at 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico, during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays). Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your 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.
The BLM New Mexico State Office is proposing to establish supplementary rules for public lands that it manages within the State of New Mexico. The proposed supplementary rules are necessary to support the mission of the BLM by protecting the natural resources and enhancing the health and safety of those using and enjoying the public lands. The proposed supplementary rules have been grouped into locations according to where they would be applicable. Some of the proposed supplementary rules would apply to all BLM-managed public lands in New Mexico, some would apply to developed recreation areas, and some would apply to specified locations.
In the mid-1990s, three BLM Districts established individual sets of supplementary rules for BLM-managed public lands in New Mexico:
• Establishment of Supplementary Rules for Designated Recreation Sites, Special Recreation Management Areas, and Other Public Land in the Albuquerque District, NM, published on May 10, 1996 (61 FR 21479);
• Reestablishment of Visitor Restrictions for Designated Recreation Sites, Special Recreation Management Areas, and Other Public Land in the Roswell District, NM, published on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62879); and
• Visitor Restrictions for Designated Recreation Sites, Special Recreation Management Areas, and Other Public Land in the Las Cruces District, NM, published on November 13, 1995 (60 FR 57012).
The BLM proposes to modify or remove many existing supplementary rules for several reasons. First, the BLM has redrawn the administrative boundaries for some of the BLM Districts since the BLM published the supplementary rules for the three districts. For example, the Taos Field Office, which was previously part of the Albuquerque District, is now part of the Farmington District. Additionally, the Socorro Field Office, which was previously part of the Las Cruces District, is now part of the Albuquerque District. This has led to confusion about whether, and to what extent, the supplementary rules apply in areas where the administrative boundaries have changed. Second, the BLM is removing some supplementary rules because they are already codified in Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), including in Sections 8365 (Visitor Services—Rules of Conduct), 9212 (Fire Management—Wildfire Protection), and 9268 (Law Enforcement—Criminal—Recreation Programs). Third, the BLM is removing or revising some of the existing supplementary rules to be consistent with the specific language of State law. Fourth, the BLM's proposed supplementary rules would implement decisions made in current Resource Management Plans (RMPs). Most BLM offices in New Mexico have either created or updated an RMP since the publication of the three district supplementary rules in the mid-1990s. In the proposed supplementary rules, the BLM seeks to implement special management decisions that apply to specific locations by formally publishing them in the
Two of the proposed supplementary rules would be new for all the BLM managed lands within the State of New Mexico. These rules can be summarized as:
1. Use or possession of drug paraphernalia; and
2. Open alcoholic beverage container in a motor vehicle, which includes off-highway vehicles
Currently, the BLM's controlled substance and alcohol regulations in New Mexico lack specific rules with penalties for the possession of drug paraphernalia and open alcoholic beverage container in a motor vehicle. The possession of drug paraphernalia and open containers of alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle are already illegal on public lands under State law. These two new rules would be consistent with current New Mexico Statutes found in NMSA 1978 sections 30-31-25.1 and 66-8-138.
The supplementary rules proposed in this Notice, if adopted, will replace and supersede all existing supplementary rules currently applicable to BLM-managed public lands within the State of New Mexico.
The proposed supplementary rules are not a significant regulatory action and are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. They would not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. The proposed supplementary rules would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The proposed supplementary rules would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. The BLM invites your comments on how to make these proposed supplementary rules easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
(1) Are the requirements in the supplementary rules clearly stated?
(2) Do the supplementary rules contain technical language or jargon that interferes with their clarity?
(3) Does the format of the supplementary rules (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce clarity?
(4) Would the supplementary rules be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter) sections?
(5) Is the description of the supplementary rules in the
Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the rule to the addresses specified in the
The BLM has found that the proposed supplementary rules are categorically excluded from environmental review under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), pursuant to 43 CFR 46.205(b) and 46.210(i). In addition, the proposed supplementary rules do not present any of the 12 extraordinary circumstances listed at 43 CFR 46.215. Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental regulations, policies, and procedures of the Department of the Interior (DOI) (43 CFR 46.205), the term “categorical exclusions” means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and that have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. All of the proposed supplementary rules are consistent with applicable land use plans. Additionally, through the various RMPs developed within the State of New Mexico, the BLM has already analyzed the potential impacts captured by the proposed supplementary rules.
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed supplementary rules would merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational or commercial activities on public lands in order to protect natural resources and the environment, and provide for human health and safety. Therefore, the BLM has determined under the RFA that the proposed supplementary rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed supplementary rules are not a “major rule” as defined under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The proposed supplementary rules would merely revise the rules of conduct for public use of limited areas of public lands and would not affect commercial or business activities of any kind.
The proposed supplementary rules would not impose an unfunded mandate of more than $100 million per year; on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, nor would they have a significant or unique effect on small governments. The proposed supplementary rules would have no effect on governmental or tribal entities and would impose no requirements on any of these entities. The proposed supplementary rules would merely revise the rules of conduct for public use of limited areas of public lands and would not affect tribal, commercial, or business activities of any kind. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act at 2 U.S.C. 1531.
The proposed supplementary rules do not represent a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined that the proposed supplementary rules would not cause a taking of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order.
The proposed supplementary rules 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that the proposed supplementary rules would not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Under Executive Order 12988, the BLM has determined that the proposed supplementary rules would not unduly burden the judicial system, and that they meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that the proposed supplementary rules do not include policies that would have tribal implications. The proposed supplementary rules would merely revise the rules of conduct for public use of limited areas of public lands.
In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined that these proposed consolidated supplementary rules would not impede facilitating cooperation conservation; would take appropriate account of and consider the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources. The rules would properly accommodate local participation in the Federal decision-making process, and would provide that the programs,
In developing these proposed supplementary rules, the BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554). In accordance with the Information Quality act, the DOI has issued guidance regarding the quality of information that it relies on for regulatory decisions. This guidance is available on the DOI's Web site at
Under Executive Order 13211, the BLM has determined that the proposed supplementary rules would not comprise a significant energy action, and that they would not have an adverse effect on energy supplies, production, or consumption.
The proposed supplementary rules do not directly provide for any information collection that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. Moreover, any information collection that may result from Federal criminal investigations or prosecutions conducted under the proposed supplementary rules are exempt from the provisions of 44 U.S.C. 3518(c)(1).
The principal author of these proposed supplementary rules is Jeffery Miller, State Chief Ranger, New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87508.
For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authorities for supplementary rules found under 43 CFR 8365.1-6, 43 U.S.C. 1733(a), 16 U.S.C. 670h(c)(5), and 43 U.S.C. 315a, the BLM New Mexico State Director proposes to issue consolidated supplementary rules for public lands managed by the BLM in New Mexico, to read as follows:
Unless otherwise authorized by the BLM, the following prohibitions apply to all BLM-managed public lands within the State of New Mexico:
1. You must not construct or maintain any unauthorized pit toilet facility, other than shallow holes or trench toilets for use by backcountry visitors for stays lasting 14 days or less. All holes, trenches, and pits must be at least 100 feet from any permanent water source.
2. You must not camp or occupy any site longer than 14 days within a 28-day period. After 14 days, campers must move at least 25 miles and not camp within this 25-mile radius for at least 30 days.
3. You must not park any motor vehicle or camp in violation of state law.
4. You must not park a motor vehicle in areas where prohibited in a management plan for the area.
5. You must not use mechanical transport in areas or on trails posted as closed to such use and prohibited in a management plan for the area.
6. You must not allow a pet to harass, molest, injure, or kill humans, domesticated animals, wildlife, or livestock.
7. You must not ride a horse in areas or on trails posted as closed to such use and prohibited in a management plan for the area.
8. You must not bring a pet on any trail, in any cave, or freshwater spring closed to pets in the management plan for the area. Service animals are exempt from this rule.
9. You must remove/dispose of all pet waste from areas with regular human foot traffic including, but not limited to, developed recreation areas, picnic areas, parking areas, and trails.
10. You must not buy alcoholic beverages for or procure the sale or service of alcoholic beverages to a minor; deliver alcoholic beverages to a minor; or aid or assist a minor to buy, procure or be served alcoholic beverages.
11. If you are a minor, you must not buy, attempt to buy, receive, possess, or consume alcoholic beverages.
12. You must not knowingly have in your possession or on your person, while in a motor vehicle upon any public road, any bottle, can or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage that has been opened or had its seal broken or the contents of which have been partially removed.
13. You must not use or possess any drug paraphernalia in violation of state law.
14. You must not use or possess a weapon, including concealed carry, in violation of State law.
15. You must not fail to comply with all applicable State of New Mexico regulations for boating safety, equipment, and registration.
16. You must not possess a glass container where prohibited in a management plan for the area.
The following prohibitions apply to all BLM-managed developed recreation areas and sites within the State of New Mexico:
1. You must not dispose of any grey water from a trailer or other vehicle except in facilities provided for such.
2. You must not reserve camping space by any means not authorized or required by the BLM.
3. You must not bring equine stock, llamas, cattle, or other livestock within campgrounds or picnic areas unless facilities have been specifically provided for such use.
4. You must not engage in noncommercial float boating without wearing at all times while on the river, an approved U.S. Coast Guard Type I, III or V life preserver.
The following prohibitions apply to the specified locations on BLM public lands within the State of New Mexico:
1. Within Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument
a. Within Aguirre Spring Campground:
You must not be within the campground after 10 p.m. unless overnight camping.
You must not access the campground with a motor vehicle between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.
b. Within Dripping Springs Natural Area:
You must not climb, walk on, ascend, descend, or traverse historic structures.
You must not enter outside of posted day-use-only hours.
You must not swim, wade, or bathe in a pond.
You must not hike off trail on Dripping Springs Trail southeast of Crawford Trail junction.
c. Within Organ/Franklin Mountains Area of Critical Environmental Concern:
You must not bring a pet into upper Ice Canyon. Service animals are exempt from this rule.
You must not hike off designated trails in upper Ice Canyon.
d. Within Kilbourne Hole Volcanic Crater:
You must not discharge a weapon within the rim
2. Within Lake Valley Historic Site:
a. You must not walk off an established trail.
b. You must not camp.
c. You must not use outside of posted hours.
3. Within Fort Cummings Special Management Area:
a. You must not climb, walk on, ascend, descend, or traverse historic structures.
b. You must not discharge a weapon within a fenced enclosure.
c. You must not walk off an established trail within a fenced enclosure.
d. You must not camp within a fenced enclosure.
4. Within Apache Box Area of Critical Environmental Concern:
You must not discharge a weapon between February 1 and August 15.
5. Within Cook's Range Area of Critical Environmental Concern:
You must not collect fuelwood.
6. Within Guadalupe Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern:
You must not collect fuelwood.
Rio Puerco Field Office
7. Within Guadalupe Ruin:
You must not camp.
8. Within Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument:
a. You must not camp or occupy between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
b. You must not build, tend, or use a campfire.
c. You must not climb or walk on “Tent Rock” formations.
9. Within La Ventana Natural Arch area:
a. You must not camp.
b. You must not participate in technical rock climbing.
10. Within El Malpais National Conservation Area:
You must not camp at The Narrows.
11. Within Fort Craig Historic Site:
a. You must not walk off an established trail.
b. You must not camp.
12. Within Zuni Salt Lake Proprietary Area of Critical Environmental Concern:
You must not cut wood.
13. Within Johnson Hill Special Recreation Management area:
You must not target shoot within a half a mile from the trail.
14. Within Ward Ranch Recreation sites:
You must not camp or occupy between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
15. Within Rio Grande Del Norte National Monument:
Wild Rivers Bear Crossing Overlook:
You must not camp or occupy between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River:
a. At John Dunn Bridge Recreation Site, you must not camp or occupy between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
b. At Manby Hot Springs Recreation Site, you must not camp or occupy between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
c. At Black Rock Spring Recreation Site, you must not camp or occupy between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
d. At Chawalauna Overlooks, you must not camp or occupy between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Orilla Verde Recreation Area:
a. You must not launch or take out boats, except for emergencies, at any site not designated for such use.
b. At gauging station picnic site, you must not camp or occupy between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Taos Valley Overlook Zone:
a. You must not discharge a weapon.
b. You must not camp.
c. You must not allow an unleashed dog at any trailhead.
San Antonio Extensive Recreation Management Area:
You must not have a fire outside a fire container.
Taos Plateau Extensive Recreation Management Area:
You must not camp in the Guadalupe Mountain Zone within the Wild Rivers Recreation Area.
Ute Mountain Extensive Recreation Management Area:
You must not camp within 300 feet of the descent points into Rio Grande or Costilla Creek.
16. Within Lower Gorge Special Recreation Management Area:
a. At Quartzite Recreation Site, you must not camp or occupy between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
b. At County Line Recreation Site, you must not camp or occupy between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
c. At Lover's Lane Recreation Site, you must not camp or occupy between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
d. Between County Line and Velarde Diversion Dam, you must not use
17. Within Chama Canyon Special Recreation Management Area:
You must not have a fire outside a fire container.
18. Within Posi Special Recreation Management Area:
a. You must not discharge a weapon.
b. You must not camp.
c. You must not allow an unleashed dog in the area of the trailhead, including the parking area.
19. Within Palacio Arroyos Special Recreation Management Area:
a. You must not target shoot within the areas used for parking, unloading trailers, camping, and pit areas (during OHV events).
b. You must not allow an unleashed dog in the area used for parking, unloading trailers, camping, and pit areas (during OHV events).
20. Within La Puebla Special Recreation Management Area:
a. You must not discharge a weapon.
b. You must not camp.
21. Within Cieneguilla Special Recreation Management Area:
a. You must not discharge a weapon.
b. You must not camp.
c. You must not allow an unleashed dog in the area of the trailhead, including the parking area.
22. Within Diablo Canyon Special Recreation Management Area:
You must not discharge a weapon.
23. Within Cerrillos Hills/Burnt Corn Special Recreation Management Area:
You must not discharge a weapon.
24. Within La Cienega Area of Critical Environmental Concern:
a. You must not discharge a weapon in Santa Fe River Canyon or cultural resource sites.
b. You must not cut wood.
25. Within Copper Hills Area of Critical Environmental Concern:
You must not camp within 100 feet of rivers and streams.
26. Within Galisteo Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern:
You must not target shoot.
27. Within Alien Run Mountain Bike Trail:
a. You must not discharge a weapon.
b. You must not gather wood.
28. Within Carracas Mesa Recreation and Wildlife Area:
You must not gather wood.
29. Within Head Canyon Motocross Track:
a. You must not gather wood.
b. You must not discharge a weapon.
30. Within Glade Run Recreation Area:
a. You must not discharge a weapon.
b. You must not gather wood.
c. You must not camp.
31. Within Navajo Lake Horse Trail:
a. You must not gather wood.
b. You must not discharge a weapon, except licensed hunters during hunting season.
32. Within Angel Peak Scenic Area:
You must not gather wood.
33. Within Dunes Off-Road Vehicle Recreation Area:
a. You must not gather wood.
b. You must not discharge a weapon.
34. Within Negro Canyon Special Designated Area:
You must not gather wood.
35. Within Pinon Mesa Recreation Area:
a. You must not gather wood.
b. You must not discharge a weapon, except licensed hunters during hunting season.
c. You must not enter posted-closed areas between March 1 and August 1.
36. Within Rock Garden Recreation Area:
a. You must not gather wood.
b. You must not discharge a weapon, except licensed hunters during hunting season.
37. Within Simon Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern:
a. You must not gather wood.
b. You must not discharge a weapon in the Simon Canyon drainage.
38. Within Thomas Canyon Recreation and Wildlife Area:
You must not gather wood.
39. Within Ephemeral Wash Riparian Area:
You must not cut or gather wood.
40. Within Rio Bonito Acquired Lands:
You must not discharge a weapon including hunting, except for bow hunting in authorized areas
41. Within Fort Stanton National Conservation Area:
a. You must not enter Fort Stanton Cave between November 1 and April 15.
b. You must not enter Feather Cave.
42. Within Roswell Cave Complex:
a. You must not enter Crockett, Crystal Caverns, Martin-Antelope Gyp, Torgac Annex, Torgac, Big-Eared Cave, Malpais Madness, Corn Sink Hole, or Tres Nino caves between November 1 and April 15.
b. You must not enter Bat Hole Cave or Coachwhip Cave.
43. Carrizozo Land Partnership
a. You must not enter lands without being in possession of required permit (
The following persons are exempt from these supplementary rules: Federal, State, local, and/or military employees acting within the scope of their duties; members of any organized rescue or fire-fighting force performing an official duty; and persons, agencies, municipalities or companies holding an existing special-use permit and operating within the scope of their permit.
On BLM-managed public lands, outside of developed recreation areas and sites, where discharging a weapon is prohibited through the establishment of a supplementary rule, unless specifically excluded, persons with a valid New Mexico hunting license while legally and actively in the pursuit of game during an open season are authorized by the BLM to discharge weapons in these areas.
On public lands under section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1733(a), and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, any person who violates any of these supplementary rules may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned for no more than 12 months or both. Such violations may also be subject to enhanced fines provided for by 18 U.S.C. 3571.
Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 43 U.S.C. 315a, any willful violation of these supplementary rules on public lands within a grazing district, and within the boundaries established in the rules shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $500. Such violations may also be subject to the enhanced fines provided for by 18 U.S.C. 3571. Under the Sikes Act, 16 U.S.C. 670j, any person who violates any of these supplementary rules on public lands subject to a conservation and rehabilitation program implemented by the Secretary of the Interior may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned for no more than 6 months or both. Such violations may also be subject to the enhanced fines provided for by 18 U.S.C. 3571.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on October 2, 2015, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Polymer Technology Systems, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana. A supplement to the complaint was filed on October 16, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain blood cholesterol test strips and associated systems containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,087,397 (“the '397 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained 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 at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain blood cholesterol test strips and associated systems containing same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 3, 10-12, and 17-19 of the '397 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-531-533 and 731-TA-1270-1273 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Canada, China, India, and Oman, provided for in subheading 3907.60.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be sold at less-than-fair-value and imports of PET resin from China and India
Michael Haberstroh, (202-205-3390), 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 phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, 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 and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (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.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, for a period of 30 days, the United States will receive public comments on a proposed Consent Decree in
The Complaint in this Clean Water Act case was filed against Tri-Marine Management Co., LLC, Tri-Marine Fishing Management LLC, and Cape Mendocino Fishing LP (collectively, “Tri-Marine”) concurrently with the lodging of the proposed Consent Decree. The Complaint alleges that Tri-Marine is civilly liable for violations of Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1321. The Complaint seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief for the discharge of harmful quantities of marine diesel fuel oil into navigable waters of the United States from Tri-Marine's commercial tuna fishing vessel, the
Under the proposed Consent Decree, Tri-Marine will pay a civil penalty of $1,050,000 for the alleged violations. In addition to payment of the civil penalties, the Consent Decree requires Tri-Marine to perform inspections and corrective measures across its entire fleet of ten American Samoa-based vessels, including review and overhaul of all of the vessels' oil handling practices, operator certifications, independent audits, increased reporting, and the engagement of a full-time consultant or in-house personnel focused on environmental and maritime compliance.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $6.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Bank Collective Investment Funds, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1991-38,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before December 7, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW.,
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Bank Collective Investment Funds, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption (PTE) 1991-38, information collection. PTE 1991-38 exempts from Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) section 406, 29 U.S.C. 1106, prohibited transaction provisions certain transactions between a bank collective investment fund and parties in interest to a plan, provided that the plan's participation in the collective investment fund does not exceed a specified percentage of the total assets in the collective investment fund and that the bank maintains and makes available certain records. Internal Revenue Code section 4975(c)(2) and ERISA section 408(a) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Collective Investment Funds Conversion Transactions, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1997-41,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before December 7, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Collective Investment Funds Conversion Transactions, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1997-41 (PTE 97-41) information collection. PTE 97-41 permits an employee benefit plan to purchase shares of an open-end registered investment company in exchange for plan assets transferred in-kind from a collective investment fund maintained by a bank or plan adviser, where the bank or plan adviser is the investment adviser of the investment company and a fiduciary of the plan, provided specified conditions are met. PTE 97-41 requires that an independent fiduciary receive advance written notice of any covered transaction, as well as specific written information concerning the mutual funds to be purchased. The independent fiduciary must also provide written advance approval of conversion transactions and receive written confirmation of each transaction, as well as additional on-going disclosures as defined in the exemption. Internal Revenue Code section 4975(c)(2) and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 section 408(a) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund Activity,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before December 7, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund Activity information collection that comprises the Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF) management reports. These reports assure that UTF contributions collected are immediately paid over to the Secretary of the Treasury. The reports also assure that expenditure of all money withdrawn from the unemployment fund of a State is used exclusively for the payment of benefits, exclusive of refund. Federal Unemployment Tax Act sections 3304(a)(3) and 3304(a)(4) and Social Security Act sections 303(a)(4) and 303(a)(5) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of renewal of the charter of the NASA Advisory Council.
Pursuant to sections 14(b)(1) and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), and after consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, the NASA Administrator has determined that renewal of the charter of the NASA Advisory Council is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties. The renewed charter is for a two-year period ending October 21, 2017.
Ms. Marla King, NASA Advisory Council Administrative Officer, Advisory Committee Management Division, Office of International and Interagency Relations, (202) 358-1148, NASA, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of proposed revisions to existing Privacy Act systems of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is issuing public notice of its proposal to modify its previously noticed system of records. This notice publishes updates to health related systems of records as set forth below under the caption
Submit comments within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The changes will take effect at the end of that period, if no adverse comments are received.
Patti F. Stockman, Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001, (202) 358-4787,
NASA Privacy Act Officer, Patti F. Stockman, (202) 358-4787,
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of its biennial System of Records review, NASA is making minor modifications of its systems of records including: Update of Locations of Records; revision of Categories of Records to reflect reduced information collected; updates of System and Subsystem Managers; and clarification of Routine Uses. Changes for specific NASA systems of records are set forth below:
Human Experimental and Research Data Records/NASA 10HERD: Include a purpose section; provide minor wording
Health Information Management System/NASA 10HIMS: Update System Locations; provide minor wording refinements of Categories of Records and Individuals, Routine Uses, and Subsystem Managers; and update the Safeguards section.
Occupational Radiation Information System/NASA 10ORIS: Update System Location and Safeguards sections to be more complete.
Human Experimental and Research Data Records.
None.
Locations 2, 5, 6, and 8, as set forth in Appendix A.
Information in this system of records is maintained on individuals who have been involved in space flight, aeronautical research flight, and/or participated in NASA tests or experimental or research programs. Categories of individuals covered include civil service and military employees, employees of other government agencies, contractor employees, students, International Space Partner personnel, volunteers, and other human research subjects on whom information is collected as part of an experiment or study.
Record categories in this system include data obtained in the course of an experiment, test, or research medical data from in-flight records, and other information collected in connection with an experiment, test, or research.
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 44 U.S.C. 3101.
Any disclosures of information will be compatible with the purpose for which the Agency collected the information. Records and information in this system may be disclosed: (1) To other individuals or organizations, including Federal, State, or local agencies, and nonprofit, educational, or private entities, who are participating in NASA programs or are otherwise furthering the understanding or application of biological, physiological, and behavioral phenomena as reflected in the data contained in this system of records; (2) to external biomedical professionals and independent entities to support internal and external reviews for purposes of research quality assurance; (3) to international partners for research activities pursuant to NASA Space Act agreements; (4) to external professionals conducting research, studies, or other activities through arrangements or agreements with NASA and for mutual benefit; and (5) in accordance with standard routine uses set forth in Appendix B.
Records in this system are stored as paper documents, electronic media, micrographic media, photographs, or motion picture film, and various medical recordings such as electrocardiograph tapes, stripcharts, and x-rays.
Records are retrieved by the individual's name, experiment or test; arbitrary experimental subject number; flight designation; or crewmember designation on a particular space or aeronautical flight.
Records are maintained on secure NASA servers and protected in accordance with all Federal standards and those established in NASA regulations at 14 CFR 1212.605. Additionally, server and data management environments employ infrastructure encryption technologies both in data transmission and at rest on servers. Electronic messages sent within and outside of the Agency that convey sensitive data are encrypted and transmitted by staff via pre-approved electronic encryption systems as required by NASA policy. Approved security plans are in place for information systems containing the records in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) and OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources. Only authorized personnel requiring information in the official discharge of their duties are authorized access to records through approved access or authentication methods. Access to electronic records is achieved only from workstations within the NASA Intranet, or remotely via a secure Virtual Private Network (VPN) connection requiring two-factor token authentication or via employee PIV badge authentication from NASA-issued computers. Non-electronic records are secured in locked rooms or files.
Records are maintained in Agency files for varying periods of time depending on the need for use of the records and destroyed when no longer needed in accordance with NASA Records Retention Schedules, Schedule 7 Item 16.
Chief Health and Medical Officer, Location 1.
Subsystem Managers: Director Life Sciences Directorate, Chief Space Medicine Division, and Program Scientist Human Research Program, both at Location 5; and Institutional Review Board (IRB) Chairs at Locations 2, 6, and 8, as set forth in Appendix A.
Information may be obtained by contacting the cognizant system or subsystem manager listed above. Requests must contain the identifying data concerning the requester,
Requests from individuals should be addressed to the same address as stated above.
The NASA regulations for access to records and for contesting and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear at 14 CFR part 1212.
Information in this system is obtained from experimental test subjects, physicians and other health care providers, principal investigators and other researchers, and previous experimental test or research records.
None.
Health Information Management System.
None.
Information in this system of records is maintained on anyone receiving health or medical care in or through a NASA clinic or healthcare activity.
Paper-based records of Medical Clinics/Units and Environmental Health Offices are held at NASA Locations 1, 9, 11, 14, and 19, as set forth in Appendix A. Electronic records are hosted on secure NASA servers in Locations 5 and 6, as set forth in Appendix A, and at the Medgate Chicago Data Center, 341 Haynes Drive, in Wood Dale, Illinois 60191, which is a secure, redundant, Tier III, SAS 70 certified facility.
This system contains information on (1) NASA civil service employees and applicants; (2) other Agency civil service and military employees working at NASA; (3) active or retired astronauts and active astronaut family members; (4) International Space Station Partner personnel, their families, or other space flight personnel on temporary or extended duty at NASA; (5) onsite contractor personnel who receive job-related examinations under the NASA Occupational Health Program, have work-related mishaps or accidents, or visit clinics for emergency or first-aid treatment; and (6) visitors to NASA Centers who use clinics for emergency or first-aid treatment.
This system contains:
(1) General medical records of routine health care, first aid, emergency treatment, examinations (
(2) Information resulting from physical examinations, laboratory and other tests, and medical history forms; treatment records; screening examination results; immunization records; administration of medications prescribed by private/personal or NASA flight surgeon physicians; consultation records; and hazardous exposure and other health hazard/abatement data.
(3) Medical records, behavioral health records, and physical examination records of Astronauts and their families.
5 U.S.C. 7901; 51 U.S.C. 20113(a); 44 U.S.C. 3101; 42 CFR part 2.
Any disclosures of information will be compatible with the purpose for which the Agency collected the information. The records and information in this system may be disclosed: (1) To external medical professionals and independent entities to support internal and external reviews for purposes of medical quality assurance; (2) to private or other government health care providers for consultation or referral; (3) to the Office of Personnel Management, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and other Federal or State agencies as required in accordance with the Federal agency's special program responsibilities; (4) to insurers for referrals or reimbursement; (5) to employers of non-NASA personnel in support of the Mission Critical Space Systems Personnel Reliability Program; (6) to international partners for mission support and continuity of care for their employees pursuant to NASA Space Act agreements; (7) to non-NASA personnel performing research, studies, or other activities through arrangements or agreements with NASA and for mutual benefit; (8) to the public of pre-space flight information having mission impact concerning an individual crewmember, limited to the crewmember's name and the fact that a medical condition exists; (9) to the public, limited to the crewmember's name and the fact that a medical condition exists, if a flight crewmember is, for medical reasons, unable to perform a scheduled public event following a space flight mission/landing; (10) to the public to advise of medical conditions arising from accidents, consistent with NASA regulations; and (11) in accordance with standard routine uses as set forth in Appendix B.
Records are stored in multiple formats including paper, digital, micrographic, photographic, and as medical recordings such as electrocardiograph tapes, x-rays and strip charts.
Records are retrieved from the system by the individual's name, date of birth, and/or Social Security or other assigned Number.
Records are maintained on secure NASA servers and protected in accordance with all Federal standards and those established in NASA regulations at 14 CFR 1212.605. Additionally, server and data management environments employ infrastructure encryption technologies both in data transmission and at rest on servers. Electronic messages sent within and outside of the Agency that convey sensitive data are encrypted and transmitted by staff via pre-approved electronic encryption systems as required by NASA policy. Approved security plans are in place for information systems containing the records in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) and OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources. Only authorized personnel requiring information in the official discharge of their duties are authorized access to records through approved access or authentication methods. Access to electronic records is achieved only from workstations within the NASA Intranet, or remotely via a secure Virtual Private Network (VPN) connection requiring two-factor token authentication using NASA-issued computers or via employee PIV badge authentication from NASA-issued computers. The Medgate Chicago Data Center maintains documentation and verification of commensurate safeguards in accordance with FISMA, NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 2810.1A, and NASA ITS-HBK-2810.02-05. Non-electronic records are secured in locked rooms or files.
Records are maintained in Agency files and destroyed by series in accordance with NASA Records Retention Schedule 1, Item 126, and NASA Records Retention Schedule 8, Item 57.
Chief Health and Medical Officer at Location 1.
Subsystem Managers: Director, Health and Medical Systems, Occupational Health at Location 1; Chief, Space Medicine Division at Location 5; Occupational Health Contracting Officer Representatives at Locations 2-4, 6-14, and 19. Locations are as set forth in Appendix A.
Information may be obtained by contacting the cognizant system or subsystem manager listed above. Requests must contain the identifying
Individual written requests for information shall be addressed to the System Manager at Location 1 or the subsystem manager at the appropriate NASA Center.
The NASA regulations for access to records and for contesting contents and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear in 14 CFR part 1212.
The information in this system of records is obtained from individuals, physicians, and previous medical records of individuals.
None.
Occupational Radiation Information System.
None.
NASA's electronic health records are hosted at the Medgate Chicago Data Center, 341 Haynes Drive, in Wood Dale, Illinois 60191. Paper-based records and non-medical electronic records are located in NASA facilities in Locations 2 through 14 as set forth in Appendix A.
This system maintains information on NASA civil service employees and applicants; other Agency civil service and military employees working at NASA; International Space Station Partner personnel who use NASA space or aeronautical vehicles; principal investigators or other visitors to NASA Centers; onsite contractor personnel who handle, use, or are exposed to ionizing or non-ionizing radiation sources and/or devices.
Records in the system include, but are not limited to name, date of birth, and social security number contained in: (1) Work history questionnaires and training records, including Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) training and experience documents; (2) Radiation producing source and/or device use authorizing forms; (3) Personnel licenses and/or certifications; (4) Employee radiation levels including medical, background and space radiation exposure and/or calculated radiation levels from Medical records and patient histories; and (5) Prenatal exposure counseling and pregnancy declarations.
51 U.S.C. 20113(a); 10 CFR part 20, 29 CFR 1910.1096; and State law and/or State agreement.
Any disclosures of information will be compatible with the purpose for which the Agency collected the information. Records and information in this system may be disclosed: (1) To State oversight agencies, the NRC, and/or Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for verification and evidence of regulatory compliance; (2) to agency contractors, grantees, or volunteers who have been engaged to assist the agency in the performance of a contract service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other activity related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform their activity; (3) to International Space Agencies (as appropriate) for data obtained on their national employees who are assigned, detailed and/or participating at a NASA Center or spacecraft; (4) to other Federal agencies including, but not limited to, the Air Force, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as evidence of regulatory compliance; and (5) in accordance with standard routine uses set forth in Appendix B.
Records in this system are kept under controlled conditions in both physical form in file cabinets and electronic form on NASA work stations and servers.
Records are retrieved from the system by the individual's name.
Records are maintained on secure NASA servers and protected in accordance with all Federal standards and those established in NASA regulations at 14 CFR 1212.605. Additionally, server and data management environments employ infrastructure encryption technologies both in data transmission and at rest on servers. Electronic messages sent within and outside of the Agency that convey sensitive data are encrypted and transmitted by staff via pre-approved electronic encryption systems as required by NASA policy. Approved security plans are in place for information systems containing the records in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) and OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources. Only authorized personnel requiring information in the official discharge of their duties are authorized access to records through approved access or authentication methods. Access to electronic records is achieved only from workstations within the NASA Intranet, or remotely via computers using a secure Virtual Private Network (VPN) connection requiring two-factor NASA-issued token authentication or via employee PIV badge authentication using NASA-issued computers. The Medgate Chicago Data Center is a secure, redundant, Tier III, SAS 70 certified facility that maintains documentation and verification of commensurate safeguards in accordance with FISMA, NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 2810.1A, and NASA ITS-HBK-2810.02-05. Physical records are secured under locked conditions when not in use.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with NASA Records Retention Schedules (NRRS), Schedule 1 Item 130; and Schedule 8 Item 57, or individual State, NRC or OSHA requirements if longer than those in the NRRS.
Chief Health and Medical Officer, Location 1.
Subsystem Managers: NASA and Contractor Radiation Safety Officers at Locations 2 through 14 as set forth in Appendix A.
Information may be obtained from the subsystem managers listed above.
Requests from individuals should be addressed to the same address as stated in the Notification section above.
The NASA regulations for access to records and for contesting contents and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear in 14 CFR part 1212.
Individuals themselves, mishap reports, field surveys, licensing and certification authorities, and monitoring device laboratories.
None.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email:
On September 23, 2015 the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
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 December 7, 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.
Nature McGinn, 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.
A small expedition would use a reinforced ketch rigged sailing yacht to transit from Ushuaia, Chile, to the Antarctic Peninsula region and back. Activities to be conducted include: Passenger landings, hiking, photography, wildlife viewing, and possible station visits. Designated pollutants that would be generated during the trip include air emissions, waste water (urine, grey-water) and solid waste (food waste, human solid waste, and packaging materials). Human waste and grey water would be disposed of in offshore waters, complying with the provisions of Article 5 of Annex III and Article 6 of Annex IV of MARPOL Protocol and the Convention. All other wastes would be kept for proper disposal in Ushuaia at the end of the expedition. Seawater samples would be collected for studies on microplastics.
Antarctic Peninsula region, including Deception Island, Foyn Harbor, Paradise Bay, Port Lockroy, Vernadsky, Hovgard Island, Hero Inlet/Anvers Island, and Melchior Islands.
January 16, 2015-February 6, 2016.
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 December 7, 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.
Nature McGinn, 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.
ASPA entry; Applicant requests entry to Cape Crozier, ASPA 124 in order to film an Adelie penguin documentary film for Disney. The applicant and team would use long lens filming techniques, which require the camera person to be at a distance from the animals in order to capture natural behaviors. The work would be observational and would not involve interactions with penguins. The team would be working with penguin scientists who conduct work in Cape Crozier.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3. The proposed amendment uses a new Criticality Safety Analysis (CSA) methodology for performing the criticality safety evaluation for legacy fuel types in addition to the new ATRIUM 10XM fuel design in the DNPS spent fuel pools (SFPs). In addition, the licensee's amendment request proposes a change to the DNPS Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1, “Criticality,” in support of the new CSA.
Submit comments by December 7, 2015. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by January 4, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Russell S. Haskell, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1129, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0250 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:
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0250 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.
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, for operation of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, located in Grundy County, Illinois. The proposed amendment uses a new Criticality Safety Analysis (CSA) methodology for performing the criticality safety evaluation for legacy fuel types in addition to the new ATRIUM 10XM fuel design in the DNPS spent fuel pools (SFPs). In addition, the licensee's amendment request proposes a change to the DNPS Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1, “Criticality,” in support of the new CSA.
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves a revised CSA for the DNPS Units 2 and 3, SFPs using a new methodology and proposes a new TS requirement limiting the maximum in-rack k-infinity. The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes, spent fuel storage racks, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in the SFP, decay heat generation rate, or the SFP cooling and cleanup system.
The proposed amendment was evaluated for impact on the following previously evaluated events and accidents:
• A fuel handling accident (FHA),
• A fuel mis-positioning event,
• A seismic event, and
• A loss of SFP cooling event
The probability of a FHA is not increased because implementation of the proposed amendment will employ the same equipment and processes to handle fuel assemblies that are currently used. The FHA radiological consequences are not increased because the methodology used in support of the CSA does not impact the radiological source term of a single fuel assembly.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an FHA.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not significantly increase the probability of a fuel mis-positioning event because fuel movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures. These procedures continue to require identification of the initial and target locations for each fuel assembly that is moved. The consequences of a fuel mis-positioning event are not changed because the reactivity analysis demonstrates that the new sub-criticality criteria and requirements will be met for the worst-case fuel mis-positioning event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not change the probability of a seismic event. The consequences of a seismic event are not increased because the forcing functions for seismic excitation are not increased and because the mass of storage racks has not changed. Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not change the probability of a loss of SFP cooling event because the systems and events that could affect SFP cooling are unchanged. The consequences are not significantly increased because there are no changes in the SFP heat load or SFP cooling systems, structures or components due to the proposed change in CSA methodology. Furthermore, conservative analyses indicate that the current design requirements and criteria continue to be met with the presence of Boral blisters.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in the DNPS, Units 2 and 3, SFPs is a normal activity for which DNPS has been designed and licensed. As part of assuring that this normal activity can be performed without endangering the public health and safety, the ability to safely accommodate different possible accidents in the spent fuel pool have been previously analyzed. These analyses address accidents such as radiological releases due to dropping a fuel assembly; and potential inadvertent criticality due to mis-loading a fuel assembly. The proposed amendment does not change the method of fuel movement or spent fuel storage and does not create the potential for a new accident.
The proposed use of a new methodology for performing the DNPS SFP CSA and addition of a new TS requirement limiting the maximum in-rack k-infinity does not change or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes, spent fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the SFP cooling and cleanup system. The potential for blistering on the Boral has been evaluated and the neutron poison will continue to fulfill its function.
The limiting fuel assembly mis-positioning event does not represent a new or different type of accident. The mis-positioning of a fuel assembly within the fuel storage racks has always been possible. The proposed amendment involves a revised CSA for the DNPS Units 2 and 3, SFPs using a new methodology. The associated analysis results show that the storage racks remain sub-critical, with substantial margin, following a worst-case fuel mis-loading event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves a revised CSA for the DNPS Units 2 and 3, SFPs using a new methodology and proposes a new TS requirement limiting the maximum in-rack k-infinity. This change was evaluated for its effect on margins of safety related to criticality and spent fuel heat removal capability.
DNPS TS 4.3, “Fuel Storage,” Specification 4.3.1.1.a requires the spent fuel storage racks to maintain the effective neutron multiplication factor, k-eff, less than or equal to 0.95 when fully flooded with unborated water, which includes an allowance for uncertainties. Therefore, for spent fuel pool criticality considerations, the required safety margin is 5 percent.
The proposed change ensures, as verified by the associated criticality analysis, that k-eff continues to be less than or equal to 0.95, thus preserving the required safety margin of 5 percent. In addition, using the in-rack k-infinity limit ensures that the SFP criticality analysis remains bounding and provides adequate protection to ensure public health and safety in that it determines the reactivity limit for the fuel assemblies that are allowed to be stored in the SFP storage racks.
The proposed use of a new methodology for performing the DNPS SFP CSA does not affect spent fuel heat generation or the spent fuel cooling systems. A conservative analysis indicates that the design basis requirements and criteria for spent fuel cooling continue to be met with Boral blistering considered.
In addition, the radiological consequences of a dropped fuel assembly remain unchanged as the anticipated fuel damage due to a fuel handling accident is unaffected by the use of a new methodology to perform the CSA. The proposed change also does not increase the capacity of the Unit 2 and Unit 3 spent fuel pools beyond the current capacity of not more than 3537 fuel assemblies.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The hearing request or petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by January 4, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by January 4, 2016.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is ordered.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Application for combined license; withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing an application for a combined license (COL) for the Callaway Plant, Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant in Callaway County, Missouri. The COL application is being withdrawn at the request of the applicant, AmerenUE (Ameren).
The effective date of the withdrawal of Ameren's combined license application for Callaway Plant, Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant is November 5, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0556 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Prosanta Chowdhury, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1647, email:
By letter dated July 24, 2008, as supplemented by letters dated September 24, 2008, and November 14, 2008, AmerenUE (Ameren) submitted an application to the NRC for a COL for a single unit of the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (U.S. EPR) in accordance with the requirements contained in part 52 of title 10 of the
On December 18, 2008, a notice was published in the
By letter dated June 23, 2009, Ameren requested that the NRC staff suspend all activities relating to the COL application (ADAMS Accession No. ML091750988). By letter dated June 29, 2009, the NRC granted the suspension of the COL application (ADAMS Accession No. ML091750665). By letter dated August 12, 2015, Ameren requested that the Callaway Plant, Unit 2 COL application be withdrawn (ADAMS Accession No. ML15265A524). Pursuant to the requirements in 10 CFR part 2, the Commission grants Ameren its request to withdraw the Callaway Plant, Unit 2 COL application.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Week of November 2, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal by applicant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated October 2, 2013, for a proposed amendment to DPR-77 and DPR-79. The proposed amendment would have revised Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.5, “Ultimate Heat Sink.”
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0045 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Andrew Hon, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8480, email:
The NRC has granted the request of Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) to withdraw its October 2, 2013, application (ADAMS Accession No. ML13280A267) for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79 issued to the licensee for operation of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
The licensee requested to revise Units 1 and 2 TSs 3.7.5, “Ultimate Heat Sink,” to place additional limitations on the maximum average Essential Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) System supply header water temperature during operation with one ERCW pump per loop and operation with one ERCW supply strainer per loop. In addition, the one-time limitations on Unit 1 ultimate heat sink (UHS) temperature and the associated license condition requirements used for the Unit 2 steam generator replacement project are proposed to be deleted. The proposed changes would place additional temperature limitations on the UHS TS Limiting Condition for Operation 3.7.5 with associated required actions, to support maintenance on plant component without requiring a dual unit shutdown.
This proposed amendment request was noticed in 78
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Time and Date: Monday, November 9, 2015 from 9:30 a.m. through 12:30 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
Place: 2100 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20427.
Status: Closed. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and 6 CFR 1003.5(a), it has been determined that this meeting will be closed to the public as the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526.
Matters To Be Considered: On April 8, 2015, during an open Sunshine Act meeting, the Board voted to select certain counterterrorism-related activities governed by Executive Order 12333, and conduct focused, in-depth examinations of those activities. The November 9, 2015 closed meeting will discuss these in-depth examinations.
Contact Person for More Information: Ms. Sharon Bradford Franklin, Executive Director, 202-331-1986.
Notice of Request for Information.
The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to discover new ideas that will spur innovation in agriculture and food systems and raise the profile of agricultural research. According to recent projections from The United Nations, the global population could reach 9.15 billion people by 2050. In the future, to meet the demand for food and other plant-derived products from a global population of this size, an increase of global agriculture production by as much as 70 percent will be required. More than four-fifths of the necessary production gains will need to occur on existing agricultural land through sustainable intensification that makes effective use of land and water resources. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) therefore seeks information about programs, public or private, that are actively working to innovate agricultural science, as well as areas of need in research, education, and training. Input is sought from biological and agricultural stakeholders, including researchers in academia and industry, non-governmental organizations, scientific and professional societies, and other interested members of the public.
Responses must be received by December 4, 2015 to be considered.
You may submit responses by any of the following methods (webform is preferred):
•
•
Elizabeth Stulberg,
The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from researchers in academia and industry, non-governmental organizations, scientific and professional societies, and other interested members of the public on the research, education, and training programs that are successfully working to push the cutting edge of agricultural
Respondents may wish to address the following questions with regard to the future of agriculture and food systems:
1. Over the next ten years, what are the most important research gaps that must be addressed to advance agricultural innovation?
2. What interdisciplinary agriculture and food programs successfully impact agricultural innovation?
3. What elementary, middle, and high school outreach programs are successful examples of introducing students to agricultural careers, and what are examples of effective ways to introduce agriculture to suburban and urban students interested in careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)?
4. How can colleges and universities recruit STEM undergraduates into agricultural disciplines? What effect, if any, do introductory courses that engage students in discovery-based research have for this purpose?
5. What resources are fundamental to addressing agricultural research needs?
6. What further training is needed among agricultural professionals to take advantage of advances in agriculture research?
7. Is there any additional information, not requested above, that you believe OSTP should consider in identifying crucial areas of agricultural research?
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rules 21.2, 21.6, and 21.7 to change the time orders will be accepted on the Exchange's options platform (“BATS Options”) from 8:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 21.2, 21.6, and 21.7 to change the time orders will be accepted on BATS Options from 8:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. Currently, the Exchange begins accepting orders at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Orders would then be available for execution as of 9:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.2(a) to expressly state that the Exchange will begin accepting orders at 7:30 a.m. Eastern Time, as described in Rule 21.7 and discussed below. The addition of this sentence to Rule 21.2(a) would align the text of the rule with EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) Rule 21.2(a).
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.6(c) to state that orders can be entered into the System starting at 7:30 a.m. Eastern Time. Currently, the Rule 21.6(c) states that orders can be entered into the System from 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time until the market close. While orders will be accepted by the System starting at 7:30 a.m. Eastern Time, they will not be eligible for execution until 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 21.6(c) to state that orders received prior to completion of the Exchange's Opening Process will be handled in accordance with Rule 21.7 discussed below. As with the proposed change to Rule 21.2(a) discussed above, the addition of this sentence to Rule 21.6(c) would align the text of the rule with EDGX Rule 21.6(c).
Lastly, as amended, Rule 21.7 would state that the Exchange will accept market and limit orders and quotes for inclusion in the opening process beginning at 7:30 a.m. Eastern Time, rather than 8:00 a.m. as is currently the case and will continue to accept market and limit orders and quotes until such time as the Opening Process is initiated in that option series (the “Order Entry Period”), other than index options.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to begin accepting orders at 7:30 a.m. is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed additions to Rules 21.2(a) and 21.6(c) are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of 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. To the contrary, the proposed rule change is a competitive change that is designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) 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 Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rules 21.2, 21.6, and 21.7 to change the time orders will be accepted on the Exchange's options platform (“EDGX Options”) from 8:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 21.2, 21.6, and 21.7 to change the time orders will be accepted on EDGX Options from 8:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. Currently, Exchange rules state that the Exchange will begin accepting orders at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Orders would then be available for execution as of 9:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.2(a) to state that the Exchange will begin accepting orders at 7:30 a.m. Eastern Time, as described in Rule 21.7 and discussed below. Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.6(c) to state that orders can be entered into the System starting at 7:30 a.m. Eastern Time. Currently, the Rule 21.6(c) states that orders can be entered into the System from 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time until the market close. While orders will be accepted by the System starting at 7:30 a.m. Eastern Time, they will not be eligible for execution until 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.
Lastly, as amended, Rule 21.7 would state that the Exchange will accept market and limit orders and quotes for inclusion in the opening process beginning at 7:30 a.m.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to begin accepting orders at 7:30 a.m. is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of 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. To the contrary, the proposed rule change is a competitive change that is designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) 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.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of October 2015. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
The Commission: Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6821, SEC, Division of Investment
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 16, 2015, New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the comment letters and take action on the Exchange's proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
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 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 19 entitled “Risk Monitor Mechanism” by reserving this rule and relocating the rule governing the Risk Monitor Mechanism into BX Rule at Chapter VII, Section 6(f)(i), entitled “Market Maker Quotations” which contains similar market maker
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 purpose of the filing is to relocate and amend the current rule text of the Risk Monitor Mechanism at Chapter VI, Section 19.
The Exchange will require BX Market Makers to utilize either the Percentage-Based Threshold or the Volume-Based Threshold.
BX Rules at Chapter VI, Section 19 specifically describes the counting program that is maintained by the System for each Participant in a particular option. Specifically, the counting program counts the number of contracts traded in an option by each Participant within a specified time period, not to exceed 15 seconds, established by each Participant known
The specified time period commences for an option when a transaction occurs in any series in such option. The Exchange counts Specialized Quote Feed (“SQF”)
The Specified Engagement Size is automatically offset by a number of contracts that are executed on the opposite side of the market in the same option issue during the specified time period known as the “Net Offset Specified Engagement Size.” Long call positions are only offset by short call positions, and long put positions are only offset by short put positions. The Percentage-Based Threshold is engaged once the Net Offset Specified Engagement Size represents a net number of contracts executed among all series in an option issue, during the specified time period, where the issue percentage is equal to or greater than the Specified Percentage.
The System automatically resets the counting program and commences a new specified time period when: (i) A previous counting period has expired and a transaction occurs in any series in such option; or (ii) the Participant refreshes his/her quotation, in a series for which an order has been executed (thus commencing the specified time period) prior to the expiration of the specified time period.
The Exchange's amendments to the current rule text are described below in greater detail. The Exchange proposes to amend the current rule to first offer the Percentage-Based Threshold to BX Market Makers only. Today, the Percentage-Based Threshold is offered to all Participants. No other market participants, other than BX Market Makers, currently utilize the Percentage-Based Threshold today.
Proposed Rule Chapter VII, Section 6(f)(i) provides, as in the current rule, the Percentage-Based Threshold determines: (i) The percentage that the number of contracts executed in that series represents relative to the Market Maker's disseminated
The Exchange proposes to add amended rule text to proposed Rule Chapter VII, Section 6(f)(i) to state that if the Issue Percentage, rounded to the nearest integer, equals or exceeds a percentage established by a Market Maker, not less than 100% (“Specified Percentage”), the System automatically removes a Market Maker's quotes in all series of the underlying security submitted through designated BX protocols, as specified by the Exchange, during the Percentage-Based Specified Time Period.
Today, the System tracks and calculates the net impact of positions in the same option issue during the Percentage-Based Specified Time Period. The System tracks transactions,
The Exchange proposes to amend the manner in which the System resets. The System will automatically remove quotes in all option series of an underlying security when the Percentage-Based Threshold is reached and then the Percentage-Based Specified
The Exchange represents that its proposal operates consistently with the firm quote obligations of a broker-dealer pursuant to Rule 602 of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule text continues to offer BX Market Makers a risk protection tool, in addition to other available risk tools,
The Exchange believes that offering the risk tool to BX Market Makers as compared to all Participants is just and equitable because quoting across many series in an option creates the possibility of “rapid fire” executions that can create large, unintended principal positions that expose BX Market Makers, who are required to continuously quote in assigned options, to potentially significant market risk. The Percentage-Based Threshold permits BX Market Makers to monitor risk arising from multiple executions across multiple options series of a single underlying security. Other BX Participants do not bear the burden of the risk and do not have the obligations that BX Market Makers are obligated by rule to comply with on a continuous basis.
The Exchange's amendment to the operation of the counting program to describe that it operates on rolling basis, with a time window after each transaction, not singular and sequential time segments is consistent with the Act because the purpose of the risk tool is to provide BX Market Makers with the ability to monitor its transactions. The proposed counting program provides a tracking method for BX Market Makers related to the specified time period. The System captures information to determine whether a removal of quotes is necessary. The proposed function of this counting program will enable the Exchange to provide the BX Market Maker with information relative to that BX Market Maker's interest currently at risk in the market.
The Exchange's amendment which states that if the Issue Percentage, rounded to the nearest integer, equals or exceeds the Specified Percentage, the System automatically removes a Market Maker's quotes in all series of an underlying security is consistent with the Act because investors will be protected by providing BX Market Makers with a risk tool which allows BX Market Makers to properly set their risk protections at a level that they are able to meet their obligations and also manage their risk. This specificity provides more detail so that BX Market Makers may properly set their risk controls. Understanding the manner in which the System will round is important in determining when the System will trigger a risk control. Also, today, BX discusses rounding in its Rulebook.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the rule text related to resets provides guidance to BX Market Makers as to the manner in which they may re-enter the System after a removal of quotes. This amendment is consistent with the Act because the Exchange desires to provide BX Market Makers with access to the market at all times. BX Market Makers perform an important function in the marketplace and the Exchange desires to provide its market participants with access to the market. If the Market Maker is removed from the market due to a trigger of the Percentage-Based risk tool, the Exchange will permit re-entry to the market provided the Market Maker sends a re-entry indicator to re-enter the System. This is important because it informs the Exchange that the Market Maker is ready to re-enter the market. Also, the Exchange currently has risk mechanisms in place which provide guidance as to the manner in which a Market Maker may re-enter the System after a removal of quotes.
The Exchange further represents that the System operates consistently with the firm quote obligations of a broker-
Finally, the Exchange believes that its proposal to provide BX Market Makers the optionality to either select the Percentage-Based Threshold or Volume-Based Threshold as one of their risk tools will also protect investors and is consistent with the Act. Today, BX Market Makers are required to utilize the Percentage-Based Threshold. With this proposal, BX Market Makers will have the ability to select their mandatory risk as between the Percentage-Based Threshold or Volume-Based Threshold.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Percentage-Based Threshold is meant to protect BX Market Makers from inadvertent exposure to excessive risk. Accordingly, this proposal will have no impact on competition. Specifically, the proposal does not impose a burden on intra-market or inter-market competition, rather, it provides BX Market Makers with the opportunity to avail themselves of similar risk tools which are currently available on other exchanges.
The Exchange is proposing this rule change to continue to permit BX Market Makers to reduce their risk in the event the Market Maker is suffering from a system issue or due to the occurrence of unusual or unexpected market activity. Reducing such risk will enable BX Market Makers to enter quotations without any fear of inadvertent exposure to excessive risk, which in turn will benefit investors through increased liquidity for the execution of their orders. Such increased liquidity benefits investors because they receive better prices and because it lowers volatility in the options market. Reducing risk by utilizing the proposed risk protections enables BX Market Makers, specifically, to enter quotations with larger size, which in turn will benefit investors through increased liquidity for the execution of their orders. Such increased liquidity benefits investors because they receive better prices and because it lowers volatility in the options market.
The Exchange believes that offering the risk tool to BX Market Makers as compared to all Participants does not create an undue burden on competition because other BX Participants do not bear the burden of the risk and do not have the obligations that BX Market Makers are obligated by rule to comply with on a continuous basis.
The Exchange's amendment to the operation of the counting program to describe that it operates on rolling basis, with a time window after each transaction, not singular and sequential time segments does not create an undue burden on competition, rather, it provides the Market Maker with clarity as to the manner in which the System counts quotes and thereby provides BX Market Makers with an increased ability to monitor transactions.
The Exchange's amendment to add that if the Issue Percentage, rounded to the nearest integer, equals or exceeds the Specified Percentage, the System automatically removes a Market Maker's quotes in all series of an underlying security does not create an undue burden on competition because this amendment also provides the Market Maker with clarity as to the manner in which the System will remove quotes and thereby provides BX Market Makers with an increased ability to monitor transactions and set risk limits.
The amendment to the rule text concerning resetting does not create an undue burden on competition. The Exchange proposes to amend the manner in which a Market Maker may re-enter the System after a removal of quotes. This amendment provides information to BX Market Makers as to the procedure to re-enter the System after a trigger. This information is intended to provide BX Market Makers with access to the market.
No written comments were either solicited or 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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 27, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) adopted Rule 13h-1 (the “Rule”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to assist the Commission in both identifying and obtaining information on market participants that conduct a substantial amount of trading activity, as measured by volume or market value, in U.S. securities (such persons are referred to as “large traders”).
The Commission has received a request from the Financial Information Forum (“FIF”) to exempt options traders from the requirements of the Rule conditioned upon such traders not exceeding the “identifying activity level” (
For the reasons explained below, the Commission believes that providing exemptive relief for equity options traders and deferring Phase Three are appropriate. Accordingly, the Commission is: (1) Conditionally exempting equity options market participants from the self-identification requirements of the Rule if they have not met or exceeded the alternative threshold described below that is applicable to equity options trading;
The Rule defines a large trader as a person who “directly or indirectly, including through other persons controlled by such person, exercises investment discretion over one or more accounts and effects transactions for the purchase or sale of any NMS security for or on behalf of such accounts, by or through one or more registered broker-dealers, in an aggregate amount equal to or greater than the
In establishing the current identifying activity level for equity derivative securities, the Commission stated that the Rule was intended to focus on the potential impact of options transactions on the market for the underlying security.
Specifically, for equity options,
• share volume is calculated by multiplying the number of contracts by the option contract's specified multiplier; and
• fair market value is calculated using the value of the securities underlying the option.
At the time the Commission adopted Rule 13h-1, the Commission stated that this approach was consistent with Section 13(h)(1) of the Exchange Act, which sought to promote the Commission's ability to “monitor[ ] the impact on the securities markets of securities transactions involving a substantial volume or a large fair market value or exercise value . . .” in that the methodology considers the equivalent exercise value of the options on the date of purchase.
As noted above, the Rule requires large traders to self-identify to the Commission on Form 13H and periodically update their Form 13H submission,
Under Rules 13h-1(d) and (e), registered broker-dealers are responsible for, among other things, keeping records of and reporting to the Commission upon request data for their customers that are large traders or Unidentified Large Traders.
Rule 13h-1(f) provides a safe harbor that is designed to reduce broker-dealers' recordkeeping and reporting burdens with respect to Unidentified Large Traders by, among other things, providing relief for when a broker-dealer shall be deemed to know or have reason to know that a person is a large trader and thus subject to reporting obligations related to Unidentified Large Traders under Rule 13h-1. Under the safe harbor, a registered broker-dealer is deemed not to know or have reason to know that a person is a large trader if it does not have actual knowledge that a person is a large trader and it establishes policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify customers whose transactions at the broker-dealer equal or exceed the identifying activity level and, if so, to treat such persons as Unidentified Large Traders and notify them of their potential reporting obligations under this Rule.
As noted above, the Commission previously granted broker-dealers temporary exemptions from the Customer Monitoring Obligations.
Pursuant to Section 13(h)(6) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13h-1(g) thereunder,
FIF requests that the Commission grant exemptive relief for options traders that would be conditioned upon such traders' activity not exceeding the Rule's identifying activity threshold based on the gross premiums paid for the options as opposed to the value of the underlying stock at the time of the trade.
In addition, both FIF and SIMFA request that the Commission permanently exempt broker-dealers from the additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Phase Three of the Rule, which have not yet been implemented.
As discussed above, the current identifying activity level methodology for equity options was designed to focus on the potential impact of options transactions on the market for the underlying securities. Based on its experience and the experience of its member firms, however, FIF suggests that the current methodology designates as large traders some persons who rarely exercise their options and whose aggregate equity options transactions, considering the actual premium paid for the options, are not of a large enough fair market value to have an impact either on the options market or the underlying equities markets.
In particular, FIF notes that this issue appears to be especially pronounced for market participants, particularly individual non-professional investors, who transact in deep out-of-the money options on high-priced securities.
In order to alleviate the burdens on these persons without undermining the purposes of Section 13(h), the Commission hereby is providing a conditional exemption from the Self-Identification Requirements for persons that trade equity options if: (1) The aggregate value of their equity option transactions based on premium paid,
This relief utilizes the existing fair market value thresholds of the identifying activity level and references premium paid instead of the price of the underlying at the time of the trade.
Collectively, for purposes of the identifying activity level, the transactions would be valued at $20,500,000 ($10 million + $500,000 + $10 million), which is greater than the daily value threshold ($20 million). Accordingly, the person would be required to self-identify to the Commission as a large trader.
To determine whether the large trader qualifies for this exemptive relief, the equity options would be valued as follows:
The person qualifies for exemption from the Self-Identification Requirements (
Paragraph (f) of Rule 13h-1 provides a safe harbor to reduce broker-dealers' burdens in connection with monitoring their customers' trading for purposes of identifying possible large traders. To take advantage of the safe harbor, broker-dealers must have policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify persons who have reached or exceeded the identifying activity level
For any person that previously reached the identifying activity level as a result of the fair market value of their equity options transactions and previously self-identified to the Commission as a large trader, but who otherwise does not presently meet the identifying activity level as calculated under the exemptive relief provided herein, the Commission finds that it is consistent with the purposes of the Exchange Act to allow such person to file for inactive status without waiting the required full calendar year provided in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of Rule 13h-1.
To take advantage of this relief, a large trader must file for
As noted above, the Commission has implemented the Recordkeeping and Reporting Responsibilities applicable to clearing brokers for large traders in phases. In Phase One, which began on November 30, 2012, the Commission required clearing brokers for large traders (including the large trader itself if it is a self-clearing broker-dealer) to keep records and report Transaction Data for large traders' transactions that were either (1) proprietary trades by a U.S. registered broker-dealer; or (2) effected through a “sponsored access” arrangement;
When the Commission adopted the Rule, it characterized the large trader reporting requirements as “relatively modest steps” to “address the Commission's near-term need for access to more information about large traders and their trading activities. . . .”
Additionally, since adopting the Rule, the Commission adopted Rule 613, which directed the self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) to jointly submit a plan to create a comprehensive CAT that would allow regulators to efficiently and accurately track all activity throughout the U.S. markets in National Market System (NMS) securities.
The SROs submitted the initial CAT NMS plan to the Commission on September 30, 2014, and filed an amended plan on February 27, 2015.
However, the Commission finds that it is consistent with the purposes of the Exchange Act to delay Phase Three, temporarily exempting broker-dealers until November 1, 2017 from the Recordkeeping and Reporting Responsibilities, except for: (1) The clearing broker-dealer for a large trader, with respect to (a) proprietary transactions by a large trader broker-dealer; (b) transactions effected pursuant to a “sponsored access” arrangement; and (c) transactions effected pursuant to a “direct market access” arrangement; and (2) a broker-dealer that carries an account for a large trader, with respect to transactions other than those set forth above, and for Transaction Data other than the execution time. While FIF and SIFMA have requested a permanent exemption, or alternatively an additional 5-year deferment of the compliance date for Phase Three,
(1) Persons transacting in equity options are exempt from the Self-Identification Requirements if: (1) The aggregate value of their equity option transactions, calculated based on premium paid, combined with the aggregate value of their transactions in all other NMS securities (if any), does not reach or exceed the fair market value thresholds of the identifying activity level; and (2) they also do not reach or exceed the share volume thresholds of the identifying activity level.
(2) A large trader whose transactions in NMS securities since October 3, 2011 reached the identifying activity level one or more times because of the fair market value of its equity options transactions and who would have qualified in each instance for relief under this exemption is exempt from its responsibilities under Rule 13h-1(b)(1)(ii), 13h-1(b)(1)(iii), and 13h-1(b)(2), if such trader files for inactive status by submitting Form 13H and does not subsequently effect transactions that reach or exceed the identifying activity threshold using premium paid to calculate the fair market value of equity options transactions.
(3) Broker-dealers are exempted temporarily until November 1, 2017 from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Rule 13h-1(d) and (e), except for (1) clearing broker-dealers for large traders with respect to (a) proprietary transactions by a large trader broker-dealer, (b) transactions effected pursuant to a “sponsored access” arrangement, and (c) transactions effected pursuant to a “direct market access” arrangement; and, for other types of transactions, (2) broker-dealers that carry an account for a large trader for Transaction Data other than the execution time.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 19 entitled “Risk Monitor Mechanism” by reserving this rule and relocating the rule governing the Risk Monitor Mechanism into NOM Rule at Chapter VII, Section 6(f)(i), entitled “Market Maker Quotations” which contains similar market maker
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 purpose of the filing is to relocate and amend the current rule text of the Risk Monitor Mechanism at Chapter VI, Section 19.
The Exchange will require NOM Market Makers to utilize either the Percentage-Based Threshold or the Volume-Based Threshold.
NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 19 specifically describes the counting program that is maintained by the System for each Participant in a particular option. Specifically, the counting program counts the number of contracts traded in an option by each Participant within a specified time period, not to exceed 15 seconds, established by each Participant known in this rule as the “specified time period.”
The specified time period commences for an option when a transaction occurs in any series in such option. The Exchange counts Specialized Quote Feed (“SQF”)
The Specified Engagement Size is automatically offset by a number of contracts that are executed on the opposite side of the market in the same option issue during the specified time period known as the “Net Offset Specified Engagement Size.” Long call positions are only offset by short call positions, and long put positions are only offset by short put positions. The Percentage-Based Threshold is engaged once the Net Offset Specified Engagement Size represents a net number of contracts executed among all series in an option issue, during the specified time period, where the issue percentage is equal to or greater than the Specified Percentage.
The System automatically resets the counting program and commences a new specified time period when: (i) A previous counting period has expired and a transaction occurs in any series in such option; or (ii) the Participant refreshes his/her quotation, in a series for which an order has been executed (thus commencing the specified time period) prior to the expiration of the specified time period.
The Exchange's amendments to the current rule text are described below in greater detail. The Exchange proposes to amend the current rule to first offer the Percentage-Based Threshold to NOM Market Makers only. Today, the Percentage-Based Threshold is offered to all Participants. No other market participants, other than NOM Market Makers, currently utilize the Percentage-Based Threshold today.
Proposed Rule Chapter VII, Section 6(f)(i) provides, as in the current rule, the Percentage-Based Threshold determines: (i) The percentage that the number of contracts executed in that series represents relative to the Market Maker's disseminated
The Exchange proposes to add amended rule text to proposed Rule Chapter VII, Section 6(f)(i) to state that if the Issue Percentage, rounded to the nearest integer, equals or exceeds a percentage established by a Market Maker, not less than 100% (“Specified Percentage”), the System automatically removes a Market Maker's quotes in all series of the underlying security submitted through designated NOM protocols, as specified by the Exchange, during the Percentage-Based Specified Time Period.
Today, the System tracks and calculates the net impact of positions in the same option issue during the Percentage-Based Specified Time Period. The System tracks transactions,
The Exchange proposes to amend the manner in which the System resets. The System will automatically remove quotes and orders in all option series of an underlying security when the Percentage-Based Threshold is reached and then the Percentage-Based Specified Time Period is reset. The System will send a Purge Notification Message
The Exchange represents that its proposal operates consistently with the firm quote obligations of a broker-dealer pursuant to Rule 602 of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule text continues to offer NOM Market Makers a risk protection tool, in addition to other available risk tools,
The Exchange believes that offering the risk tool to NOM Market Makers as compared to all Participants is just and equitable because quoting across many series in an option creates the possibility of “rapid fire” executions that can create large, unintended principal positions that expose NOM Market Makers, who are required to continuously quote in assigned options, to potentially significant market risk. The Percentage-Based Threshold permits NOM Market Makers to monitor risk arising from multiple executions across multiple options series of a single underlying security. Other NOM Participants do not bear the burden of the risk and do not have the obligations that NOM Market Makers are obligated by rule to comply with on a continuous basis.
The Exchange's amendment to the operation of the counting program to describe that it operates on rolling basis, with a time window after each transaction, not singular and sequential time segments is consistent with the Act because the purpose of the risk tool is to provide NOM Market Makers with the ability to monitor its transactions. The proposed counting program provides a tracking method for NOM Market Makers related to the specified time period. The System captures information to determine whether a removal of quotes and orders is necessary. The proposed function of this counting program will enable the Exchange to provide the NOM Market Maker with information relative to that NOM Market Maker's interest currently at risk in the market.
The Exchange's amendment which states that if the Issue Percentage, rounded to the nearest integer, equals or exceeds the Specified Percentage, the System automatically removes a Market Maker's quotes and orders in all series of an underlying security is consistent with the Act because investors will be protected by providing NOM Market Makers with a risk tool which allows NOM Market Makers to properly set their risk protections at a level that they are able to meet their obligations and also manage their risk. This specificity provides more detail so that NOM Market Makers may properly set their risk controls. Understanding the manner in which the System will round is important in determining when the System will trigger a risk control. Also, today, NOM discusses rounding in its Rulebook.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the rule text related to resets provides guidance to NOM Market Makers as to the manner in which they may re-enter the System after a removal of quotes and orders. This amendment is consistent with the Act because the Exchange desires to provide NOM Market Makers with access to the market at all times. NOM Market Makers perform an important function in the marketplace and the Exchange desires to provide its market participants with access to the market. If the Market Maker is removed from the market due to a trigger of the Percentage-Based risk tool, the Exchange will permit re-entry to the market provided the Market Maker sends a re-entry indicator to re-enter the System. This is important because it informs the Exchange that the Market Maker is ready to re-enter the market. Also, the Exchange currently has risk mechanisms in place which provide guidance as to the manner in which a Market Maker may re-enter the System after a removal of quotes and orders.
The Exchange further represents that the System operates consistently with the firm quote obligations of a broker-dealer pursuant to Rule 602 of Regulation NMS. Specifically, with respect to NOM Market Makers, their obligation to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis is not diminished by the removal of such quotes by the Percentage-Based Threshold. NOM Market Makers are required to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis.
Finally, the Exchange believes that its proposal to provide NOM Market Makers the optionality to either select the Percentage-Based Threshold or Volume-Based Threshold as one of their risk tools will also protect investors and is consistent with the Act. Today, NOM Market Makers are required to utilize the Percentage-Based Threshold. With this proposal, NOM Market Makers will have the ability to select their mandatory risk as between the Percentage-Based Threshold or Volume-Based Threshold.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Percentage-Based Threshold is meant to protect NOM Market Makers from inadvertent exposure to excessive risk. Accordingly, this proposal will have no impact on competition. Specifically, the proposal does not impose a burden on intra-market or inter-market competition, rather, it provides NOM Market Makers with the opportunity to avail themselves of similar risk tools which are currently available on other exchanges.
The Exchange is proposing this rule change to continue to permit NOM Market Makers to reduce their risk in the event the Market Maker is suffering from a system issue or due to the occurrence of unusual or unexpected market activity. Reducing such risk will enable NOM Market Makers to enter quotations without any fear of inadvertent exposure to excessive risk, which in turn will benefit investors through increased liquidity for the execution of their orders. Such increased liquidity benefits investors because they receive better prices and because it lowers volatility in the options market. Reducing risk by utilizing the proposed risk protections enables NOM Market Makers, specifically, to enter quotations with larger size, which in turn will benefit investors through increased liquidity for the execution of their orders. Such increased liquidity benefits investors because they receive better prices and because it lowers volatility in the options market.
The Exchange believes that offering the risk tool to NOM Market Makers as compared to all Participants does not create an undue burden on competition because other NOM Participants do not bear the burden of the risk and do not have the obligations that NOM Market Makers are obligated by rule to comply with on a continuous basis.
The Exchange's amendment to the operation of the counting program to describe that it operates on rolling basis, with a time window after each transaction, not singular and sequential
The Exchange's amendment to add that if the Issue Percentage, rounded to the nearest integer, equals or exceeds the Specified Percentage, the System automatically removes a Market Maker's quotes and orders in all series of an underlying security does not create an undue burden on competition because this amendment also provides the Market Maker with clarity as to the manner in which the System will remove quotes and orders and thereby provides NOM Market Makers with an increased ability to monitor transactions and set risk limits.
The amendment to the rule text concerning resetting does not create an undue burden on competition. The Exchange proposes to amend the manner in which a Market Maker may re-enter the System after a removal of quotes and orders. This amendment provides information to NOM Market Makers as to the procedure to re-enter the System after a trigger. This information is intended to provide NOM Market Makers with access to the market.
No written comments were either solicited or 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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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. The Exchange has provided the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of a new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
The FAA assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) a new task to provide recommendations regarding occupant protection rulemaking in normal and transport category rotorcraft for older certification basis type designs that are still in production. The FAA amended regulations to incorporate occupant protection rules, including those for emergency landing conditions and fuel system crash resistance, for new type designs in the 1980s and 1990s. These rule changes do not apply to newly manufactured rotorcraft with older type designs or to derivative type designs that keep the certification basis of the original type design. This approach has resulted in a very low incorporation rate of occupant protection features into the rotorcraft fleet, and fatal accidents remain unacceptably high. At the end of 2014, only 16% of U.S. fleet had complied with the crash resistant fuel system requirements effective 20 years earlier, and only 10% had complied with the emergency landing requirements effective 25 years earlier. A recent fatal accident study has shown these measures would have been effective in saving lives.
This notice informs the public of the new ARAC activity and solicits
Martin R. Crane, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177,
As a result of the September 17, 2015, ARAC meeting, the FAA assigned and ARAC accepted this task establishing the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group. The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group will serve as staff to the ARAC and provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task. The ARAC will review and accept the recommendation report and will submit it to the FAA.
The FAA established the ARAC to provide information, advice, and recommendations on aviation-related issues that could result in rulemaking to the FAA Administrator, through the Associate Administrator of Aviation Safety.
The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group will provide advice and recommendations to the ARAC on occupant protection rulemaking, including both initial certification and continued airworthiness. The basic concept of occupant protection is to give all occupants the greatest possible chance to egress an aircraft without serious injury after a survivable emergency landing or accident. While the number of U.S. helicopter accidents and the corresponding accident rate over the past 10 years have steadily decreased, during that same time period data associated with fatal helicopter accidents and fatalities remains virtually unchanged. A number of regulations were promulgated in the 1980s and 1990s to address and greatly improve occupant protection in a survivable emergency landing or accident. These occupant protection improvements involve seat systems that reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries to the occupant in a crash (14 CFR 27.562, 27.785, 29.562, and 29.785); structural requirements that maintain a survivable volume and restrain large items of mass above and behind the occupant (14 CFR 27.561 and 29.561); and fuel systems that reduce the likelihood of an immediate post-crash fire (14 CFR 27.952 and 29.952). If the occupant protection improvement rules are not incorporated in new production helicopters, there will be no meaningful reduction in the number of fatalities in helicopter accidents.
Following a series of accidents involving post-crash fires, the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority asked the FAA for assistance in determining the airworthiness of certain helicopters. This request resulted in a collaborative post-crash fire/blunt force trauma study performed by the FAA's Rotorcraft Directorate and Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI). The data consisted of 97 fatal accidents involving U.S. registered, type-certificated helicopters in a five-year timeframe from 2008 to 2013. Part 27 rotorcraft comprised the largest mass of data (87 of 97 fatal accidents, 90% of the total) in the study. The post-crash fire portion of the study found that post-crash fires occurred in 30 of 76 (39%) of fatal accidents involving part 27 helicopters without fuel systems that meet the full crash resistance requirements of 14 CFR 27.952. The post-crash fire contributed to a fatality in 20% of these fatal accidents. While the data set for part 29 rotorcraft was much smaller (10 of 97 fatal accidents, 10% of the total), the results were comparable. Through the course of the study, the Rotorcraft Directorate further discovered that there were only about 16% of U.S. registered, type-certificated rotorcraft that fully complied with the fuel system crash resistance provisions in §§ 27.952 and 29.952, despite those rules having been in effect for 20 years at the time of the study.
In the time since increased rotorcraft occupant protection standards became effective as federal regulations, research efforts have studied injury patterns in fatal rotorcraft accidents. In April 2003,
The second component of the Rotorcraft Directorate/CAMI study involved blunt force trauma. Blunt force trauma accounted for cause of death in 92% of the 2008-2013 fatal accident data. In addition, blunt force trauma also was the cause of death in 80% of the part 27 fatal rotorcraft accidents where a post-crash fire occurred. The Rotorcraft Directorate and CAMI built their study using the framework and methodology previously established by Taneja and Wiegmann's 2003 study. Further, they used the percentages of bony injuries and organ/visceral injuries documented in Taneja and Wiegmann's study as a baseline for comparison. The intent was to see if a statistically significant change occurred in blunt force trauma injury patterns in fatal rotorcraft accidents in the 10 years since the previous study. They concluded there was no statistically significant difference across most categories of bony injuries and across all categories of organ/visceral injuries. The Rotorcraft Directorate further discovered that only 10% of U.S. registered, type-certificated rotorcraft complied with increased occupant protection measures related to blunt force trauma mandated in the §§ 27.562 and 29.562 rules, despite the rules being in effect for 25 years at the time of the study. The provisions of §§ 27.562 and 29.562 were specifically designed for increased protection of the head and core body regions, the same regions documented with the highest levels of injury in the fatal accident studies conducted by Taneja and Wiegmann and the Rotorcraft Directorate/CAMI.
Additional research found that about 9,000 occupants had been involved in U.S. helicopter accidents in the 25 years since §§ 27.562 and 29.562 became effective. Only 2% of helicopters in those accidents were compliant with §§ 27.562 and 29.562. Over 1,300 occupants were killed in accidents involving the 98% of helicopters that were not compliant with §§ 27.562 and 29.562.
The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group is tasked to:
1. Perform a cost-benefit analysis for incorporating the existing occupant protection standards 14 CFR 27.561, 27.562, 27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562, 29.785, and 29.952 via §§ 27.2 and 29.2 for newly manufactured rotorcraft that addresses the following:
a. Estimate what the regulated parties would do differently as a result of the proposed regulation and how much it would cost.
b. Estimate the improvement in survivability of future accidents.
c. Estimate any other benefits (
2. Develop a cost-benefit analysis report containing the information explained in task 1 above.
3. After the FAA accepts and considers the cost benefit analysis report, the FAA will task the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group either to make specific written recommendations on how all or part of the existing occupant protection standards 14 CFR 27.561, 27.562, 27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562, 29.785, and 29.952 should be made effective via §§ 27.2 and 29.2 for newly manufactured rotorcraft, or to propose new alternative performance-based occupant protection safety regulations for newly manufactured rotorcraft that will be effective via §§ 27.2 and 29.2.
4. If new alternative performance-based occupant protection safety regulations effective via §§ 27.2 and 29.2 are proposed, perform a cost-benefit analysis that addresses the following:
a. Estimate what the regulated parties would do differently as a result of the proposed regulation and how much it would cost.
b. Estimate the improvement in survivability of future accidents from the proposed recommendations.
c. Estimate any other benefits (
5. Develop an initial report containing recommendations on the findings and results of the tasks explained above.
a. The initial recommendation report should document both majority and dissenting positions on the findings and the rationale for each position.
b. Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale for each position and the reasons for the disagreement.
6. Complete the following after the FAA accepts the initial recommendation report identified in task 5:
a. Specifically advise and make written recommendations on incorporating rotorcraft occupant protection improvements and standards into the existing rotorcraft fleet. Occupant protection standards include either all or part of 14 CFR 27.561, 27.562, 27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562, 29.785, and 29.952, or new alternative proposed performance-based regulations.
b. Develop an addendum report containing recommendations on the findings and results of the tasks explained above.
c. Document both majority and dissenting positions on the findings and the rationale for each position.
d. Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale for each position and the reasons for the disagreement.
7. The working group may be reinstated to assist the ARAC in responding to the FAA's questions or concerns after the recommendation report has been submitted.
This tasking notice requires three reports.
• The task 2 cost-benefit analysis report must be submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than 6 months after publication of this notice in the
• The task 5 initial recommendation report must be submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than 12 months after initiation of task 3 above.
• The task 6 addendum recommendation report must be submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than 6 months after the initial recommendation report is submitted.
The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group must comply with the procedures adopted by the ARAC as follows:
1. Conduct a review and analysis of the assigned tasks and any other related materials or documents.
2. Draft and submit a work plan for completion of the task, including the rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration by the ARAC.
3. Provide a status report at each ARAC meeting.
4. Draft and submit the recommendation reports based on review and analysis of the assigned tasks.
5. Present the cost-benefit analysis report in task 2 at the ARAC meeting.
6. Present the initial recommendation report at the ARAC meeting.
7. Present the findings from the addendum recommendation report at the ARAC meeting.
The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group will be comprised of technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a member representative of the ARAC. The FAA would like a wide range of members (normal category rotorcraft manufacturers, transport category rotorcraft manufacturers, and rotorcraft operators from various segments of the industry such as oil and gas exploration, emergency medical services, and air tour operators) to ensure all aspects of the tasks are considered in development of the recommendations. The provisions of the August 13, 2014, Office of Management and Budget guidance, “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions” (79 FR 47482), continues the ban on registered lobbyists participating on Agency Boards and Commissions if participating in their “individual capacity.” The revised guidance now allows registered lobbyists to participate on Agency Boards and Commissions in a “representative capacity” for the “express purpose of providing a committee with the views of a nongovernmental entity, a recognizable group of persons or nongovernmental entities (an industry, sector, labor unions, or environmental groups, etc.) or state or local government.” (For further information see Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 as amended, 2 U.S.C 1603, 1604, and 1605.)
If you wish to become a member of the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group, write the person listed under the caption
If you are chosen for membership on the working group, you must actively participate in the working group, attend all meetings, and provide written comments when requested. You must devote the resources necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned deadlines. You must keep your management and those you may represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure the proposed technical solutions do not conflict with the position of those you represent. Once the working group has begun deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the ARAC Chair, the FAA, including the Designated Federal Officer, and the Working Group Chair.
The Secretary of Transportation determined the formation and use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
The ARAC meetings are open to the public. However, meetings of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of Petition.
BMW of North America, Inc. (BMW) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2015 MINI Cooper, Cooper S hardtop 2 door, and Cooper S hardtop 4 door passenger cars do not fully comply with paragraph S4.2.3(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226,
For further information on this decision contact Karen Nuschler, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5829, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on September 1, 2015 in the
S4.2.3
(a) Vehicles with an ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in the event of a rollover must be described as such in the vehicle's owner manual or in other written information provided by the vehicle manufacturer to the consumer. . . .
1. The vehicles are equipped with a countermeasure that meets the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 226.
2. The owner's manuals contain a description of the ejection mitigation countermeasure in the context of side impact.
3. The owner's manuals contain precautions related to the [ejection mitigation] system even though not required by FMVSS No. 226.
4. The [ejection mitigation] system uses the FMVSS No. 208 required readiness indicator, as allowed by FMVSS No. 226.
5. BMW has not received any customer complaints due to this issue.
6. BMW is not aware of any accidents or injuries due to this issue.
7. NHTSA may have granted similar manufacturer petitions re owner's manuals.
8. BMW has corrected the noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with FMVSS No. 226.
In summation, BMW believes that the described noncompliance of the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt BMW from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
BMW has also reported that they have not received any complaints from vehicle owners regarding the subject noncompliance and that vehicle production was corrected so that the noncompliance did not occur in subsequent vehicles.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject vehicles that BMW no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the Granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after BMW notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Receipt of petition.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that nonconforming model year (MY) 2009 Ford F-150 trucks that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of the MY 2009 Ford F-150 truck) and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is December 7, 2015.
Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5308).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
Wallace Environmental Testing Laboratories (WETL), Inc. of Houston, Texas (Registered Importer R-90-005) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming MY 2009 Ford F-150 trucks are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which WETL believes are substantially similar are MY 2009 Ford F-150 trucks that were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified MY 2009 Ford F-150 truck to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
WETL submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified MY 2009 Ford F-150 trucks, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S.-certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified MY 2009 Ford F-150 trucks are identical to their U.S.-certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 138
Standard No. 208
The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicle near the left windshield post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565. The petitioner also states that each vehicle will be inspected prior to importation for compliance with 49 CFR part 541 and modified if necessary.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final decision.
On January 28, 2015, NHTSA published a notice requesting comments on the agency's intention to recommend various vehicle models that are equipped with automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems that meet the agency's performance criteria to consumers through the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and its Web site,
These changes to the New Car Assessment Program are effective for the 2018 Model Year vehicles.
For technical issues: Dr. Abigail Morgan, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Telephone: 202-366-1810, Facsimile: 202-366-5930, NVS-122. For NCAP issues: Mr. Clarke Harper, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, email:
The mailing address for these officials is as follows: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
This notice announces the agency's decision to update the U.S. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to include a recommendation to motor vehicle consumers on vehicle models that have automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems that can substantially enhance the driver's ability to avoid rear-end crashes. NCAP recommends crash avoidance technologies, in addition to providing crashworthiness, rollover, and overall star ratings. Today, 3 crash avoidance technologies—forward collision warning, lane departure warning, and rearview video systems—are recommended by the agency if they meet NHTSA's performance specifications.
NHTSA is adding AEB as a recommended technology, which means that we now have tests for AEB. AEB refers to either crash imminent braking (CIB), dynamic brake support (DBS), or both on the same vehicle. CIB automatically applies vehicle brakes if the vehicle sensing system anticipates a potential rear impact with the vehicle in front of it. DBS applies more brake power if the sensing system determines that the driver has applied the brakes prior to a rear-end crash but estimates that the amount of braking is not sufficient to avoid the crash. NHTSA is also removing rearview video systems (RVS) as a recommended technology in Model Year 2019, because RVS is going to be required on all new vehicles manufactured on or after May 1, 2018, and that technology's presence in NCAP will no longer provide comparative information for consumers.
The vehicles that have Advanced Technologies recommended by NHTSA may be seen on the agency Web site
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides comparative safety rating information on new vehicles to assist consumers with their vehicle purchasing decisions. In addition to issuing star safety ratings based on the crashworthiness and rollover resistance of vehicle models, the agency also provides additional information to consumers by recommending certain advanced crash avoidance technologies on the agency's Web site,
The agency first included recommended advanced technologies as part of the NCAP upgrade that occurred as of the 2011 model year. These first technologies were electronic stability control (ESC), forward collision warning (FCW), and lane departure warning (LDW). Subsequently, in 2014, NHTSA replaced ESC, which is now mandatory for all new light vehicles, with another technology, rearview video systems (RVS).
The agency may recommend vehicle technologies to consumers as part of NCAP if the technology: (1) Addresses a major crash problem, (2) is supported by information that corroborates its potential or actual safety benefit, and (3) is able to be tested by repeatable performance tests and procedures to ensure a certain level of performance.
Rear-end crashes constitute a significant vehicle safety problem. In a detailed analysis of 2006-2008 crash data,
Collectively, NHTSA refers to CIB and DBS systems as automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems. Prior to the development of AEB systems, vehicles were equipped with forward collision warning systems, to warn drivers of pending frontal impacts. These FCW systems sensed vehicles in front, using radar, cameras or both. These CIB and DBS systems can use information from an FCW system's sensors to go beyond the warning and potentially help avoid or mitigate rear-end crashes. CIB systems provide automatic braking when forward-looking sensors indicate that a crash is imminent and the driver is not braking. DBS systems provide supplemental braking when sensors determine that driver-applied braking is insufficient to avoid an imminent crash. As part of its rear-end crash analysis, the agency concluded that AEB systems would have had a favorable impact on a little more than one-half of rear-end crashes.
The agency has conducted test track research to better understand the performance capabilities of these systems. The agency's work is documented in three reports, “Forward-Looking Advanced Braking Technologies Research Report” (June 2012)
AEB technologies were among the topics included in an April 5, 2013 request for comments notice on a variety of potential areas for improvement of NCAP.
The agency found that CIB and DBS systems are commercially available on a number of different production vehicles and these systems can be tested successfully to defined performance measures. NHTSA has developed performance measures that address real-world situations to ensure that CIB and DBS systems address the rear-end crash safety. The agency believes that systems meeting these performance measures have the potential to help reduce the number of rear-end crashes as well as deaths and injuries that result from these crashes. Therefore, the agency is including CIB and DBS systems in NCAP as recommended crash avoidance technologies on
The January 28, 2015 request for comments notice that preceded this document sought public comment in the following four areas.
• General response to the draft test procedures;
• Whether or not the draft test procedures' combination of test scenarios and test speeds provide an accurate representation of real-world CIB and DBS system performance;
• Whether or not any of the scenarios in the draft test procedures can be removed while still ensuring that the procedures still reflect an appropriate level of system performance—if so, which scenarios and why they can be removed;
• Whether or not the number of test trials per scenario can be reduced—if so, why and how; and
• How the draft test procedures can be improved—if so, which specific improvements are needed.
• Whether or not there are specific elements of the SSV that would make it inappropriate for use in the agency's CIB and DBS performance evaluations—if so, what those elements are and why they represent a problem; and
• Whether or not the SSV will meet the needs for CIB and DBS evaluation for the foreseeable future—if not, why not, and what alternatives should be considered and why.
• Whether the two brake application methods defined in the DBS test procedure, those based on displacement or hybrid control, provide NHTSA with enough flexibility to accurately assess the performance of all DBS systems; and
• What specific refinements, if any, are needed to either application method?
• The agency wanted to know whether there is any recent research concerning CIB and DBS systems that is not reflected in the agency's research to date and, if so, what is that research
Twenty-one comments were received.
The ASC, Bosch, IIHS, MEMA, and, TRW addressed the desirability of NHTSA harmonizing its AEB NCAP test procedures and other evaluation criteria with other consumer information/rating programs, particularly Euro NCAP. Other commenters urged harmonization with Euro NCAP with respect to specific details.
Many commenters (Alliance, AGA, ASC, Continental, Ford, Honda, IIHS, MEMA) stated that they would like NHTSA to harmonize the SSV used in NCAP with the target vehicle used in Euro NCAP Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) tests. Commenters also asked for harmonization with specific technical areas such as brake application magnitude and rate, brake burnishing and test speeds.
NHTSA plans to establish minimum performance criteria in the two test procedures for CIB and DBS to be recommended to consumers in NCAP. Comments on these test procedures were broad and very detailed. Advocates suggested stronger criteria. Manufacturers suggested changes to various parts of the test procedures.
Several commenters argued against the introduction of another SSV to the vehicle testing landscape and urged NHTSA to adopt a preexisting SSV instead to avoid imposing added vehicle testing costs on the vehicle manufacturing industry. Specifically, AGA, ASC, Continental, Ford, Honda, IIHS, and Tesla asked NHTSA to specify the Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club e.V. (ADAC) target vehicle that is used by Euro NCAP and IIHS. Bosch supported harmonization of surrogate test vehicles generally.
The Alliance asked for further development of the SSV equipment and tow frame structure to eliminate the use of the lateral restraint track. The association asked that NHTSA harmonize the SSV propulsion system with that of the ADAC propulsion system used by Euro NCAP.
The Alliance said that since the new SSV is not readily available, its members have not been able to conduct a full set of tests to assess the repeatability and reproducibility of the SSV relative to the ADAC barrier or other commercially available test targets.
The Alliance requested additional clarification about the SSV initial test set-up to maintain the intended accuracy and repeatability of tests. Members of the Alliance also requested clarification regarding the definition of the target “Zero Position” coupled with the use of deformable foam at the rear bumper. Other SSV concerns raised by AGA were that the energy absorption of the SSV should be increased to minimize potential damage to the subject vehicle in the event of an impact, that the color of the lateral restraint track used in conjunction with the SSV be changed to avoid its being interpreted as being a lane marking by camera-based classification of lanes, that the possibility that the SSV could be biased toward radar systems, and how the SSV may appear to camera systems in various lighting conditions.
Some of the comments went beyond the changes discussed in the January 2015 notice. The AMA said that all AEB systems included in NCAP should be able to detect and register a motorcycle. If not, vehicle operators may become dependent on these new technologies and cause a crash, because the system did not detect and identify a smaller vehicle. Advocates, AGA, Bosch, CU, Continental, Honda, IIHS, MEMA, and NTSB said they would like a rating system for advanced crash avoidance technologies, including CIB and DBS, which reflects systems' effectiveness. Honda urged NHTSA to include pedestrian and head-on crashes among the types of crashes that are covered by NCAP evaluation of AEB systems in the future.
The majority of comments received were from the automobile industry. No commenter opposed including AEB systems in NCAP.
By including CIB and DBS systems in NCAP as Recommended Advanced Technologies, we will be providing consumers with information concerning advanced safety systems on new vehicles offered for sale in the United States. The vehicle models that meet the NCAP performance tests offer effective countermeasures to assist the driver in avoiding or mitigating rear-end crashes. In addition, the agency believes recognizing CIB and DBS systems that meet NCAP's performance measures will encourage consumers to purchase vehicles that are equipped with these systems and manufacturers will have an incentive to offer more vehicles with these systems.
Comments focused on the details of how the inclusion of AEB systems into NCAP should be administered. The agency's responses to the comments received are below.
The Alliance, AGA, ASC, Continental, Ford, Honda, IIHS, and MEMA stated that they would like NHTSA to harmonize the SSV used in NCAP with the target vehicle used in Euro NCAP. Some commenters requested that NHTSA use the Euro NCAP towing system. They also wanted similar performance criteria, such as identical test scenarios, identical speeds, and identical tolerances.
NHTSA has carefully examined Euro NCAP specification and procedures for AEB technologies. The agency has decided against redirecting the program toward harmonization for several reasons, as discussed in more detail below.
For AEB systems and their application to the U.S. market, NHTSA's benefit estimation and test track performance evaluations began five years ago. This work is documented in three reports, “Forward-Looking Advanced Braking Technologies Research Report” (June 2012), “Automatic Emergency Braking System Research Report” (August 2014), and “NHTSA's 2014 Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) Test Track Evaluations” (May 2015) with accompanying draft CIB and DBS test procedures.
Early into its test track AEB evaluations, NHTSA staff members met with representatives of Euro NCAP. Among the matters discussed at that time was the need for a realistic-appearing, robust test target that accurately emulated an actual vehicle. Specific attributes included a need to (1) be “realistic” (
Euro NCAP, as of 2014, included AEB systems in the technologies it rates in its “Safety Assist” assessments. The ratings for “Safety Assist” systems are in turn combined with ratings for adult occupant protection, child occupant protection, and pedestrian protection to determine a vehicle's overall rating. Euro NCAP assessments of AEB systems adopted the use of a target vehicle developed by ADAC. Known as the Euro NCAP Vehicle Target (EVT), this target is comprised of an inflatable and foam-based frame with PVC cover. The outside of the cover features a rear-aspect image of an actual car and retro-reflective film over the taillights. Internally, the EVT includes a combination of shapes and materials selected to be provide realistic radar return characteristics. To provide longitudinal motion, the EVT is towed.
At the time of its initial AEB evaluations, NHTSA attempted to evaluate the EVT device. We attempted to purchase an EVT from ADAC, but we were ultimately unable to obtain the device and its propulsion system. To avoid research program delays, NHTSA decided to develop and manufacturer its own strikeable surrogate vehicle. Like the EVT, the design goal of the NHTSA equipment was to be as safe, realistic, and functional as possible. The NHTSA SSV and tow equipment are both commercially available, and the drawings for the equipment are publicly available.
NHTSA has developed a carbon fiber strikeable surrogate vehicle (SSV) that uses original equipment taillights, reflectors, brake lights and a simulated license plate. These features help define the SSV so that it will be interpreted by a vehicle's AEB sensing system as being an actual vehicle. We believe that the SSV is a target vehicle that better mimics real vehicles than other target vehicles because its radar signature more closely resembles that of an actual vehicle. We will be using the SSV in the AEB validation testing to confirm that AEB systems meet the agency's performance criteria.
Manufacturers do not need to use the SSV to generate and submit data in support of their AEB systems that are recommended to consumers on
We will continue to look for ways in which U.S. NCAP and other consumer vehicle safety information programs around the world, particularly Australasian NCAP, Euro NCAP and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety can harmonize and complement each other. We expect one of the benefits of the U.S. NCAP and other NCAP programs having different test procedures will be that these programs will eventually have data that could support how best to modify these programs harmonize some elements of the programs while retaining other elements that are unique and necessary to each programs.
Advocates, AGA, Bosch, CU, Continental, Honda, IIHS, MEMA, and NTSB said they would like a rating system for advanced technologies, including CIB and DBS, which reflects systems' effectiveness. AGA said CIB and DBS should each be rated separately. AGA pointed out that some CIB and DBS systems already in the marketplace would not pass the NCAP performance criteria, but would still provide safety benefits. AGA stated that information regarding these safety benefits would not reach consumers under the current pass/fail approach. AGA further noted that Euro NCAP gives credit to vehicles for the tests they do pass.
In the January 28, 2015 request for comments, the agency sought comment on our plans to add AEB to the list of Recommended Advanced Technologies, a feature which appears on the agency's Web site
The agency fully recognizes that published requests for comments provide an opportunity for the public to address not only issues specifically raised in the request for comments, but also to express concerns in other areas. We will consider these comments in evaluating future changes to NCAP.
While supporting NHTSA's plan to establish minimum performance criteria that AEB systems must meet to be recommended to consumers in NCAP, Advocates criticized the planned AEB performance criteria as being insufficiently stringent. The Advocates' comments focused on the speeds at which Euro NCAP testing is conducted, including:
• Speeds up to 31 mph (50 kilometers per hour (km/h)) such that 19 percent of the possible points for Euro NCAP AEB are awarded for performance at approach speeds above the planned NHTSA NCAP testing.
• Lead vehicle stopped scenarios are tested at subject vehicle speeds of a range of 6 to 31 mph (10 to 50 km/h), as compared with the planned NHTSA NCAP lead vehicle stopped test which will be conducted at a single speed of
The Advocates further noted that Euro NCAP is proposing to incorporate additional, more stringent AEB tests and ratings in its star rating system beginning in 2016. These will include:
• Lead vehicle stopped scenarios at subject vehicle (SV) speeds up to 50 mph (80 km/h).
• Lead vehicle moving slower tests with a SV speed of 19 to 50 mph (30 to 80km/h) approaching a principal other vehicle (POV) moving at 12 mph (20 km/h), for a closing speed of 7 to 38 mph (11 to 61 km/h). Advocates noted that the planned NHTSA approach would include lead vehicle moving slower tests with SV/POV speeds of 25/10 mph (40/16 km/h) and 45/20 mph (72/32 km/h), for a maximum closing speed of 25 mph (40 km/h).
• Lead vehicle braking tests with SV/POV speeds at 31/31 mph (50/50 km/h) with a lead vehicle deceleration of 0.2 to 0.6g (2 and 6 meters per second squared [m/s
Conversely, the Alliance suggested we reduce the stringency of the performance criteria by deleting the lead vehicle stopped scenarios entirely.
The proposed NCAP test scenarios and test speeds are in part based on crash statistics, field operational tests, and testing experience. In developing the scenarios and test speeds for this test program we considered work done to develop the forward collision warning performance tests. In reviewing the information concerning crashes, we noted that the most common rear-end pre-crash scenario is the Lead-Vehicle-Stopped, at 16 percent of all light vehicle rear-end crashes (975,000 crashes per year).
In evaluating the test speeds we considered the practicality of safely performing crash avoidance testing without damaging test vehicles and/or equipment should an impact with the test target occur during testing. Testing vehicles at speeds over 45 mph (72 km/h) may have safety and practicality issues. Testing at speeds over 45 mph (72 km/h), the speed used in NCAP's forward collision warning test, could potentially cause a safety hazard to the test driver and the test engineers. The problem arises if the vehicle being tested fails to perform as expected. For the FCW tests, warning system failure is not a problem because the nature of the test allows the test driver to steer away from the principal other vehicle, without any vehicle-to-vehicle contact. However, for the AEB tests, there can be no evasive steering. At speeds over 45 mph (72 km/h), we believe that the test vehicles in the AEB program might experience frontal impact of the subject vehicle into the principal other vehicle if there is a system failure or speed reduction that does not result in a reduction of velocity of 25 mph (40 km/h). This may be a hazard to the test drivers and to people around the test track. Also potential front end damage at higher speeds, for the same reasons, may have unacceptable test program delays or make completion of the tests impractical. If front end damage to the test vehicle occurs, the agency would have to repair the test vehicle and recalibrate its sensing system. This might take weeks to repair and to restart the testing.
Another upper speed limitation is the practicality of running the tests. For example, the Lead Vehicle Decelerating test becomes difficult. The SSV rides on a 1500-ft (457 m) monorail to constrain its lateral position within the test lane, an attribute that helps improve the accuracy and repeatability that the slower moving and decelerating lead vehicle scenarios may be performed. However, this track length is too short to safely accelerate the SSV to 45 mph (72 km/h), establish a steady state SV-to-SSV headway (to insure consistent test input conditions), then safely decelerate the SSV to a stop at 0.3g; conditions like those specified in the FCW NCAP decelerating lead vehicle test scenario. These logistic restrictions have prevented NHTSA from evaluating the durability of the SSV when subjected to the forces of being towed at 45 mph (72 km/h). To address these concerns, the NCAP CIB and DBS Decelerating Lead Vehicle tests are designed to be performed from 35 mph (56 km/h).
We believe the test vehicle speeds specified in this program, (25, 35 and 45 mph) (40, 56 and 72 km/h) represent a large percentage of severe injuries and fatalities and represent the upper limit of the stringency of currently available test equipment.
We are therefore retaining the test speeds in the test procedures.
The Alliance suggests that because of the differences in DBS design and performance abilities among vehicles (
In the previous version of the DBS test procedures (August 2014), commenters pointed out that the brake characterization process used would typically result in decelerations that exceeded the allowable 0.3g. In order to address this concern, NHTSA evaluated a revised characterization process that now include a series of iterative steps designed to more accurately determine the brake application magnitudes capable of achieving the same baseline (braking without the effect of DBS) deceleration of 0.4g for all vehicles. This deceleration level is very close to the deceleration realized just prior to actual rear-end crashes, and is consistent with the application magnitude used by Euro NCAP during its test track-based DBS evaluations. This process is included, in great detail, in the updated version of the DBS test procedure.
The Alliance pointed out that the brake pedal application rate of 279mm/s maximum for DBS activation differs from Euro NCAP, where the application rate can be specified by a manufacturer as long as it is within a range of 200 to 400 mm/s (8 to 16 in/s). Noting that there will always be differences in dynamic abilities between vehicles, the Alliance said that specifying the rate to 279 mm/s increases the DBS system's sensitivity and can lead to more false activations. The Alliance suggested that NCAP harmonize with Euro NCAP to allow manufacturers the option to specify a brake pedal application rate limit beyond 279 mm/s, up to 400 mm/s.
MBUSA provided a bit more detail in its comments. MBUSA noted that values above 360 mm/s are more representative of emergency braking situations and will be addressed in vehicle designs using conventional brake assist rather than AEB.
In a preliminary version of its DBS test procedure, NHTSA specified a brake application rate of 320 mm/s. Feedback from industry suggested this was too high, indicating it was at or near the application rate used as the trigger for conventional brake assist. This is problematic because the agency wants to provide NCAP credit for DBS, not for conventional brake assist, if the vehicle is so-equipped. To address this problem, the application rate was reduced to7 in/s (178 mm/s) in the June 2012 draft DBS test procedure. Feedback from vehicle manufactures was that this reduction to 178 mm/s went too low. A system able to activate DBS with such a brake application rate on the test track may potentially result in unintended activations during real-world driving. As an alternative, multiple vehicle manufacturers suggested the application rate be increased to 10 in/s (254 ± 25.4 mm/s). This value was implemented in the August 2014 draft DBS test procedure.
The Euro NCAP procedure specifies a range of brake pedal application speed of 7.9 to 15.8 in/s (200-400 mm/s). MBUSA noted that values significantly above 14.2 in/s (360 mm/s) are more representative of emergency braking situations and are addressed by conventional brake assist not using forward looking sensor technology.
Information provided over the course of this program has caused us to initially select a value less than 360 mm/s and greater than 178 mm/s. We recommend 254 ± 25.4 mm/s, and we have no substantive basis to change this value again. Moreover, this value is well within the range of the Euro NCAP specification. The value of 254 mm/s appears a reasonable representation of the activation of DBS in an attempt to stop, rather than slow down, but not fast enough to represent an aggressive emergency panic stop of greater than 360 mm/s.
We are retaining the proposed values of 254 ± 25.4 mm/s (10 in/s ± 0.1 in/s) for the brake pedal application rate on the DBS test.
The Alliance commented that the braking deceleration threshold should be 0.4g (4.0 m/s
The Alliance said the threshold for DBS intervention should be toward the upper acceptable deceleration rates for adaptive cruise control systems. These upper rates are up to 0.5g (5 m/s
MBUSA said NHTSA's proposed magnitude of 0.3g (3 m/s
The brake characterization process described in NHTSA's August 2014 draft DBS test procedure was intended to provide a simple, practical, and objective way to determine the application magnitudes used for the agency's DBS system evaluations. In this process, a programmable brake controller slowly applies the SV brake with a pedal velocity of 1 in/s (25mm/s) from a speed of 45 mph (72 km/h). Linear regression is then applied to the deceleration data from 0.25 to 0.55g to determine the brake pedal displacement and application force needed to achieve 0.3g. These steps are straight-forward and the per-vehicle output is very repeatable. However, when these outputs are used in conjunction with the brake pedal application rate used to evaluate DBS (
To address this concern, NHTSA has revised the characterization process to include a series of iterative steps designed to more accurately determine the brake application magnitudes capable of achieving the same baseline (braking without the effect of DBS) deceleration of 0.4g for all vehicles. The deceleration level is very close to the deceleration observed just prior to many actual rear-end crashes,
NHTSA will adopt its revised brake characterization process, and include it as part of the DBS procedure. This process will ensure baseline braking for each test speed, (25, 35, and 45 mph) will be capable of producing 0.4 ± 0.025g.
TRW advocated the use of a human driver in DBS testing to reduce the test setup time and reduce the testing costs. Bosch supports the test procedures as currently written calling for the use of a braking robot in both CIB and DBS testing.
While the NHTSA AEB test procedures can be performed with human drivers, satisfying the brake application specifications in the DBS test procedures would be challenging for a human driver. The agency acknowledges that some test drivers are capable of performing most or all of the maneuvers in this program within the specifications in the test procedures. However, we believe a programmable (
Manufacturers, suppliers and test laboratories working for these entities may choose not to use a brake robot, nor do they need to follow the test procedures exactly. However they should be confident their alternative methods demonstrate their systems will pass NHTSA's tests because NHTSA will conduct confirmation testing as outlined above. If a system fails NHTSA's confirmation testing, the
NHTSA indicated we plan to use the brake burnishing procedure from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, “Light vehicle brake systems.” IIHS said this is more pre-test brake applications than is needed. IIHS said its research shows that brake performance can be stabilized for AEB testing with considerably less effort. It cited a test series of its own involving seven vehicle models with brand new brakes in which AEB performance stabilized after conducting 60 or fewer of the stops prescribed in FMVSS No. 135. IIHS said its AEB test results after all 200 brake burnishing stops were not appreciably different from those conducted after following the abbreviated procedure described in FMVSS No. 126, “Electronic stability control systems.”
Ford urged NHTSA to adopt the Euro NCAP's brake burnishing procedure and tire characterization from the Euro NCAP AEB protocol, which it said can be completed in a few hours.
Tesla said the test procedures' specification for a full FMVSS No. 135 brake burnish is not clearly explained. They asked about how often the burnishing had to be conducted and how the brakes are to be cooled.
FMVSS No. 135 “Light vehicle brake systems” is NHTSA's light vehicle brake performance standard. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency driving conditions. The burnish procedure contained in FMVSS No. 135 is designed to ensure the brakes perform at their optimum level for the given test condition and to ensure that test result variability is minimized. The burnish procedure in FMVSS No. 135 includes 200 stops from a speed of 80 km/h (49.7 mph) with sufficient brake pedal force to achieve a constant deceleration of 3.0 m/s
The commenters suggested reducing the burnishing for two reasons. First, they want to reduce the testing burden. The IIHS states that their research shows that the foundation brake performance can be stabilized after considerably less effort. Their testing showed performance stabilization after 60 stops. Second, others want the procedure to be harmonized with the Euro NCAP. The Euro NCAP brake burnish procedure includes 13 stops total and a cool-down and is otherwise identical to the brake conditioning in FMVSS No. 126.
The agency has considered these comments. The agency believes that a full 200-stop burnishing procedure is critical to ensuring run-to-run repeatability of braking performance during AEB testing and also ensures that the vehicle's brakes performance does not change as the test progresses. The intent of the 200-stop burnishing is deemed the appropriate procedure for ensuring repeatability of brake performance in FMVSS No. 135, the agency's light vehicle brake system safety standard. The performance measured in these AEB tests relies on the vehicle's braking system to reduce speed in order to mitigate or avoid a crash with the test target. Since the agency has adopted the 200-stop procedure as the benchmark for repeatable brake performance, dropping the number of stops might create a repeatability situation for some brake system designs and therefore a repeatability situation for some AEB systems. Therefore, the agency will test AEB consistently with its light vehicle brake system tests in FMVSS No. 135.
Tesla said the need for a full FMVSS No. 135 brake burnish is not clearly explained. They interpreted the test procedure to specify brake burnishing before each and every test run.
Tesla misunderstands the test procedure. NHTSA will perform the 200-stop brake burnish only one time prior to any testing unless any brake system pads, rotors or drums are replaced, in which case the 200-stop burnish will be repeated. After the initial burnish, additional lower-speed brake applications are done only to bring the brake temperatures up to the specified temperate range for testing.
Tesla also suggested that NHTSA should better explain how, and to what extent, the agency expects the brakes to be cooled before conducting each individual test run and series of runs. Tesla said adding these cooling procedures will have test performance implications.
The process of driving the vehicle until the brake cools below a temperature between 65 °C (149 °F) and 100 °C (212 °F) or drive the vehicle for 1.24 miles (2 km), whichever comes first, has been an accepted practice in brake testing such as in FMVSS No. 135 testing. It is the brake temperature at the time of the test, not how that temperature was obtained, that is the reportedly critical characteristic in brake performance. Moreover, specifying an overly-detailed procedure may not result in desired temperature. The amount of heating or cooling may be affected by the vehicle design and the ambient conditions of the testing. Alterations in the process may be needed to achieve the temperature range.
For the AEB test procedures, NHTSA is maintaining its use of the brake burnish procedure and the initial brake temperature range currently used in its light vehicle brake standard, FMVSS No. 135.
TRW said the test procedures may not completely cover the control and tolerance around the deceleration of the POV during the Lead Vehicle Decelerating (LVD) portions of the test. It cited as an example, that brakes were applied to a level providing deceleration of 0.3g with a tolerance of +/− 0.03g, but the ability to control that parameter was not among the list of items used for the validity of test criteria, nor is it present in the test procedure for how to monitor and control that parameter for test validity.
The agency disagrees with TRW that the parameter was not among the list of items used for the validity of a test criteria. The test procedure for this parameter is described in the section titled “POV Brake Application. The test procedure provided details of this specification, such as the beginning or onset of the deceleration period, the nominal constant deceleration, the time to achieve the 0.3g deceleration, and the average tolerance of the deceleration after the nominal 0.3g deceleration is achieved, and the point at which the measurement is finished. We believe TRW is stating that this description of the deceleration parameters is not itemized in the list of 10 items specified in the section “SV Approach to the Decelerating POV”. This list contains items that must be controlled during the entire test, not just during the deceleration period. Since the deceleration does not occur during the entire test we will not be adding the specification to this list. The fact that the specifications are listed makes these deceleration specifications necessary for a valid test, even though the word “valid” does not appear in the section called “POV Brake Application”.
TRW states that the test procedures do not specify how the test laboratory will monitor the declaration parameters. NHTSA has recommended in Table 2 of the test procedures that the contractor will need to have an accelerometer to measure the longitudinal deceleration of the SV and POV. These instrumentation recommendations include specifications for the range, resolution and accuracy of these instruments. The test procedure does not specify how the contractor is to monitor or control the acceleration
MEMA supported the planned AEB test scenarios as representative of typical, real‐world driving occurrences. It said the scenarios are appropriate ways to evaluate CIB and DBS systems.
The Alliance said the lead vehicle stopped test should be deleted and the agency should only uses the lead vehicle deceleration to a stop test because 50 percent of police-reported cases rear-end crashes coded as lead stopped vehicle are actually lead vehicle decelerating to a stop. They argued such a change would permit more affordable systems and would reduce false activations.
In the August 2014 research report,
The use of the lead stopped vehicle scenarios is very important. Even if 50 percent of the lead-vehicle stopped crashes are re-classified as lead vehicle decelerating to a stop, hundreds of thousands of lead-vehicle stopped crashes still occur each year. For this reason, and to be consistent with the Euro NCAP tests, NHTSA does not believe it is appropriate to exclude the lead-vehicle stopped scenario from the CIB and DBS performance evaluation.
Based on the test track testing we have conducted since 2013, we have found that vehicles able to satisfy our LVS evaluation criteria also do so for the LVD-S test scenario. However, not all vehicles that pass our LVD-S pass the LVS scenarios.
Therefore we have decided to reduce the test burden by removing the lead vehicle deceleration to a stop (LVD-S) test and retaining the lead vehicle stopped (LVS) test.
AGA, ASC and TRW said only radar-based AEB systems will react to NHTSA's steel trench plate based false positive test, whereas other types of systems, camera- and lidar-based for example, will not be affected. AGA said that unless a test that could challenge both camera and radar systems can be identified, the false positive test should be dropped. MEMA also noted that since radar systems are sensitive to the steel trench plate false positive test, this may impact the comparative nature of radar versus other systems such as camera or lidar sensors. MEMA encouraged NHTSA to evaluate the procedure and continue to make further improvements to avoid any potential test bias.
TRW suggested two other possible false positive tests, one that would reflect “the most typically observed false-positive AEB event” a dynamic passing situation and the other in which the test vehicle drives between two stationary vehicles. Bosch said there is no single test that will fully address the problem of false activations.
The Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP) Crash Imminent Braking (CIB) Consortium endeavored to define minimum performance specifications and objective tests for vehicles equipped with FCW and CIB systems. While assessing the performance of various system configurations and capabilities, the CAMP CIB Consortium also identified real-world scenarios capable of eliciting a CIB false positive.
During testing we found that all CIB activations presently known by NHTSA are either preceded by or are coincident with FCW alerts. For the testing, we use the FCW warning as a surrogate for the CIB and DBS activations. Of the maneuvers used in the study, FCW activations were observed during the conduct of four scenarios: Object in roadway—steel trench plate, stationary vehicle at curve entrance, stationary roadside vehicles, and decelerating vehicle in an adjacent lane of a curve. Of the maneuvers capable of producing an FCW alert, CIB false positives were observed only during certain Object in Roadway—Steel Trench Plate tests, and for only one vehicle. The vehicle producing the CIB false-positives did so for 100 percent of the object in roadway—steel trench plate tests trials. No FCW or CIB activations were observed during the decelerating vehicle in an adjacent lane (straight), driving under an overhead bridge, objects in roadway—Botts' Dots, and stationary vehicle at curve exit maneuvers.
The steel trench plate was the easiest to set up, the least complex to perform, and a realistic test because the scenario is encountered during real world driving. Also, the steel trench plates are similar to some metal gratings found on bridges. The steel trench plate used in this program is believed to impose similar demands on the system functionality, albeit with better test track practicality (
Both the agency and some commenters believe that a false-positive test should be included in this program. Conversely, commenters state that the steel trench plate test is biased against radar systems.
The agency will retain the steel trench plate false-positive test in this program and will continue to monitor vehicle owner complaints of false positive activations. The agency has received consumer complaints of false-positives of these AEB systems. This program should make an effort to reduce false-positives in the field. We believe a false-positive test is important to be included in the performance tests for these technologies. We disagree that the steel trench plate is biased against radar systems. The agency establishes performance-based tests. The purpose of the performance specifications in this program is to discern and discourage systems that do not perform sufficiently in real-world scenarios. If the steel trench plate identifies a notable
It is impossible to recreate every possible source of false-positive activations experienced during real-world driving. The steel trench plate tests are included as one significant common source of false positives during our CIB and DBS test track evaluations. We encourage vehicle manufactures to include identified false-positive scenarios in system development. If in the future, other scenarios become prevalent and are brought to our attention through consumer complaints, we will consider including them in our test protocol.
Noting that the steel trench plate currently specified in the test weighs 1.7 tons and is difficult to put in place, AGA urged the agency to allow an alternative plate if manufacturers can verify its performance. Concerning the weight of the steel trench plate, the test procedures do not specify this plate to be positioned on a part of the test track used for other tests. The plate is not installed or embedded, merely laid on top of a road surface. We do not see a need to be concerned with weight or the size of this test item. We are not developing a lighter weight version of this plate at this time.
The Alliance requested that the brake application protocol and equipment for the DBS steel trench plate scenario test procedure should provide specification for a pedal release by the driver during the false positive test. The Alliance states that some systems have mechanisms that allow the driver to release the DBS response if a false activation occurs. One of the simplest and most intuitive mechanisms is for the driver to release the brake pedal. This is not in the DBS false positive test.
The agency does not agree with the Alliance's recommendation that a way for the driver to override false positives should be provided in the test scenario. The purpose of the false-positive test is to ensure that they do not occur during this performance test. If the vehicle's DBS system activates in reaction to the steel trench plate, then this is the kind of false-positive for which the test procedure is designed to identify. The agency feels that the potential consequences of a false positive are sufficient to warrant a test failure.
The agency has decided not to add a brake release action to the false-positive test procedures.
The Alliance and Bosch commented that the allowable CIB steel plate test deceleration threshold of 0.25g was too low. Bosch and the Alliance observed that some current state-of-the-art forward collision warning (FCW) portion of these AEB systems in the market use a brake jerk to warn the driver. The majority of the current brake-jerk applications for FCW use a range of 0.3g-0.4g and the maximum speed reduction normally does not exceed 3 mph (5 km/h), Bosch said. Bosch suggested increasing the threshold of the CIB false activation failure to 0.4g or using a maximum speed reduction, rather than peak deceleration rate, as the key factor for determining a pass/fail result for this test. Setting the fail point of the false activation test at 0.25g would restrict haptic pedal warning design to below 0.25g.
The steel plate test is intended to evaluate CIB performance. This test is not intended to evaluate a haptic FCW capable of producing a peak deceleration of at least 0.25g before completion of the test maneuver. To make this distinction clear, we will raise the false positive threshold to a peak deceleration of 0.50g for CIB, and 150 percent of that realized with foundation brakes during baseline braking for DBS.
The Alliance, Honda, AGA and Ford said that the determination that AEB technologies will pass each of the tests in the test procedure seven out of eight times should be changed to be consistent with the five passes out of seven trials that is specified by the NCAP forward collision warning (FCW) test procedures. The Alliance and Ford noted that the agency did not provide data to support the seven out of eight criterion approach. Ford presented the results of a coin toss experiment, which it said indicated that the five out of seven criteria covers 93.8 percent of all possible outcomes, a level whose robustness compares favorably to the 99.6 percent of all possible outcomes covered by the seven out of eight criterion.
Tesla said the planned test procedures include too many tests.
NHTSA notes that for the FCW NCAP, the vehicle must pass five out of seven trials of a specific test scenario, to pass that scenario. The vehicle must pass all scenarios to be recommended.
The agency believes the current FCW test procedure criterion of passing five out of seven tests has successfully discriminated between functional systems versus non-functional systems. Allowing two failures out of seven attempts affords some flexibility in including emerging technologies into the NCAP program. For example, NHTSA test laboratories have experienced unpredictable vehicle responses, due to the vehicle algorithm designs, rather than the test protocol. Test laboratories have seen systems that improve their performance with use, systems degrading and shutting down when they do not see other cars, and systems failing to re-activate if the vehicle is not cycled through an ignition cycle.
To be in better alignment with the FCW NCAP tests, we are changing the pass rate for the CIB and DBS tests used for NCAP to five out of seven tests within a scenario.
AGA said the current test protocol allows testing a vehicle up to the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The Alliance noted that the Euro NCAP AEB test protocol defines the vehicle weight condition as ±1% of the sum of the unladen curb mass, plus 440 lb (200 kg). AGA asked that the test protocol be amended to include an upper weight limit, similar to the way that Euro NCAP's AEB test specifies the vehicle to be loaded with no more than 440 lb (200 kg). Specifically, the Alliance recommended replacing the current language in Section 8.3.7 of the current CIB and DBS test procedures with:
“7. The vehicle weight shall be within 1% of the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight (UVW) plus 200kg comprised of driver, instrumentation, experimenter (if required), and ballast as required. The front/rear axle load distribution shall be within 5% of that of the original UVW plus 100% fuel load. Where required, ballast shall be placed on the floor behind the passenger front seat or if necessary in the front passenger foot well area. All ballast shall be secured in a way that prevents it from becoming dislodged during test conduct.”
The agency inventoried the current loads used at our test laboratory. The instrumentation and equipment currently used weighs approximately 170 lb (77 kg). Allowing two occupants in the vehicle could push the total load over 440 lb (200 kg) upper bound suggested by AGA and he Alliance.
The agency would like to reserve the flexibility of having an additional person in the vehicle during testing to assist in the testing process, observe the tests and perhaps train on the testing
We have considered the comments that vehicle weight and weight distribution will have a large effect on the performance of CIB systems. We believe that this comment concerns both the vehicle sensing system alignment and braking performance repeatability. If it is true that weight and weight distribution consistent with predictable consumer usage have a large effect on the performance of CIB systems, this is a concern of the reliability of these systems to consumers.
The agency will specify a maximum of 610 lb (277 kg) loading in these test programs. This will allow some test equipment and personnel flexibility, while still maintaining some reasonable cap on the loading changes. We also note that we may raise this limit on a case-by-case basis and in consultation with the vehicle manufacturer, if there is a need for additional equipment or an additional person that we have not anticipated at this time.
AGA urged the agency to adopt the +/−1 ft (0.3 m) lateral offset and 1 degree per second yaw rate specifications that were in previous versions of the test procedures as opposed to the +/−2 ft (0.6 m) in the latest version to improve test accuracy and better reflect anticipated real world conditions. DENSO agreed that the 1 foot lateral offset (0.3 m) and 1 degree per second yaw rate should be restored. MEMA also noted the change in yaw and lateral orientation of the SV and POV from the 2012 draft test procedures to the 2014 test procedure draft and asked for clarification. The Alliance noted that the allowable vehicle yaw rate in each test run has been increased to +/−2 degrees per second from +/−1 degree per second in the previous versions of the test procedures. Bosch recommended that NHTSA consider using a steering robot or some other means of controlling the lateral offset.
Confirming this tolerance range may be difficult with the ADAC EVT surrogate used by Euro NCAP and other institutions because the surrogate's position relative to the road or the subject vehicle is not directly measured. The measurement equipment is stored in the tow vehicle, not in the ADAC surrogate.
Review of the NHTSA's 2014 AEB test data indicate that decreasing the lateral displacement tolerance from ±2 ft to ±1 ft (±0.6 m to ±0.3 m) should not be problematic. Of the 491 tests performed, only 13 (2.7 percent) had SV lateral deviations greater than 1 ft (0.3 m). Those that did ranged from 1.06 to 1.21 ft (0.32 m to 0.37 m). The use of the SSV monorail makes conducting the test within the allowable 1-ft lateral displacement this feasible because the SSV position is controlled by the monorail.
Through testing conducted by the NCAP contractor, we have determined that we should be able to satisfy the tighter tolerance. Testing performed by NHTSA's VRTC support this finding. We believe we can perform this testing with a human driver steering the vehicle, rather than a steering robot.
For SV yaw rate, we will tighten the test tolerance to ±1 deg/sec. For the SV and POV, we will tighten the test tolerance to ±1 ft (±0.3 m) relative to the center of the travel lane. The lateral tolerance between the centerline of the SV and the centerline of the POV will be tightened to ±1 ft (0.3 m). Additionally, we will be filtering these data channels with a 3 Hz digital filter (versus the 6 Hz used previously) to eliminate short duration data spikes that would invalidate runs that are otherwise valid. We are also eliminating the lateral offset and yaw rate validity specifications for the brake characterization (12.2.1.5 and 6) and false positive baseline tests (12.6.1.5 and 6) of the DBS test procedure. This data is not needed to ensure detection and braking repeatability; with no POV in these tests, it is not necessary to be in the exact center of the lane, for example.
Subaru recommended in its comment that NHTSA adopt a headway tolerance of 5 ft (1.5 m) in the test procedures. No explanation of why this is needed was provided in the comments. The headway tolerance is the allowable variance in the longitudinal distance between the front of the subject vehicle and the rear of the principal other vehicle ahead of it as the two vehicles move. The current tolerance is ±8 ft (2.4 m).
A review of our test data reveals a 5 feet (1.5 m) tolerance is too tight unless the agency were committed to fully-automated AEB testing is conducted. At this time we do not plan to fully automate the two test vehicles (the SV and the vehicle towing the POV). The 8 ft (2.4 m) tolerance currently specified in our AEB procedures for the LVD tests is the same used for FCW NCAP testing. We are not aware of this tolerance causing any problems in AEB testing. We will leave the tolerance at 8 ft (2.4 m).
The Alliance, AGA, Continental, Ford, Honda, IIHS, and MBUSA said the activation limits of the test procedures are too high at the upper end and too low at the lower end or otherwise took issue with the speed parameters of the test procedures.
AGA objected to specifying systems to operate up to 99.4 mph, noting that 80 percent of crashes covered by these systems occur at speeds of 50 mph or less. The high speed will preclude systems that are very effective and will create safety hazards for test drivers and test tracks, AGA added.
Continental said although it is listed as a definition, the CIB/DBS active speed range is described as a performance specification, which they said makes it unclear if NHTSA's intent that the definition speed range must be met in order to receive the NCAP recommendation. If this is the case Continental said it would be necessary to define the associated performance criteria to meet the specification that the system must remain active, especially at the maximum speed, to achieve the balance between effectiveness and false positives at these specified higher speeds.
As suggested by Continental's comments, the upper and lower activation limits were intended to define the AEB systems under consideration. There is no need to define these systems in the test procedure with a reference to their upper and lower activation limits. The agency hopes that the systems made available on light vehicles sold in the United States will be active at these speeds. However, the primary focus is to assure that AEB systems meet the specifications of the test procedures and activate at the speeds at which an AEB system can reasonably be expected to avoid or mitigate a rear end crash. Therefore, the references to the upper and lower activation limits will be removed from the NCAP AEB test procedures.
The Alliance states the current throttle release specification within 0.5 seconds from the onset of the FCW warning will result in test results that
The Alliance requested that the agency consider the following options:
The agency will not make a test procedure change at this time. We believe it is possible for the SV driver to repeatably release the throttle pedal within 0.5 s of the FCW, and that any reduction of vehicle speed between the time of the throttle pedal release and the onset of the brake application is within the test procedure specifications. Human factors research indicates that when presented with an FCW in a rear-end crash scenario, driver's typically (1) release the throttle pedal then (2) apply the brakes.
Tesla expressed concern that the test procedures as currently written do not account for totally or partially electric vehicles that utilize regenerative braking to recharge batteries. Tesla urged NHTSA to clarify protocols for EV and hybrid vehicles, specifically regarding regenerative braking.
Regenerative braking is an energy-preservation system used to convert kinetic (movement) energy back to another form, which in the case of an electric vehicle, is used to charge the battery. The reason it is called “braking” is that the vehicle is forced to decelerate by this regenerative system, once the driver's foot is taken off of the throttle. This system is independent of the standard brake system but the result is the same; the vehicle slows down.
NHTSA's direct experience with testing a vehicle equipped with AEB and regenerative braking has been limited to the BMW i3. As expected, once the driver released the throttle pedal in response the FCW alert, regenerative braking did indeed slow the vehicle at a greater rate than for other vehicles not so equipped with regenerative braking. This had the effect of reducing maneuver severity since the SV speed at the time of AEB intervention was less than for vehicles not so-equipped. This is not considered problematic.
For vehicles where the driver can select the magnitude of the vehicle's regenerative braking (
The Alliance noted that in some CIB and DBS applications, system performance may take into account the warning timing setting of the FCW system when the FCW system allows the consumer to manually set the warning threshold. To clarify, the Alliance recommended that the following language, which is adapted from the FCW NCAP test procedure (Section 12.0), be included in the CIB and DBS NCAP test procedure: “If the FCW system provides a warning timing adjustment for the driver, at least one setting must meet the criterion of the test procedure.”
In its previous work involving FCW, the agency has allowed vehicle manufacturers to configure the systems with multiple performance level modes. This provided vehicle manufacturers flexibility in designing consumer acceptable configurations. The test procedure allowed an FCW mode that provides the earliest alert if the timing can be selected and used during agency testing. Additionally, the test procedures do not include resetting to the original setting after ignition cycles.
NHTSA believes that as a consumer information program, we should test the vehicles as delivered. We also believe the performance level settings of the FCW systems within the AEB test program should now be set similar to the AEB. The Alliance requested that we have language in the test procedure specifying that if there are adjustments to the FCW system, one setting must meet the criterion of the test procedure. Vehicle manufacturers may provide multiple settings for the FCW systems. However, the agency will only use the factory default setting for both the FCW and the AEB systems in the AEB program.
The Alliance commented that when the SV hits the SSV in some trials, the impact may misalign the system's sensors. To ensure baseline performance in each trial, the Alliance asked that the test procedure be modified to allow the vehicle manufacturer representatives or test technicians to inspect and, if needed, re-align the sensor axis after each instance of contact between the subject vehicle and the SSV.
NHTSA has seen two cases of sensor misalignment during the initial development of this program. In one case, the subject vehicle had visible grill damage because the AEB system did not activate and the test vehicle hit the SSV at full speed. In another case, the vehicle sensing system shut down after numerous runs; inspection also revealed visible grill damage to the subject vehicle. In both cases, the vehicles were returned to an authorized dealer, repaired and then returned to the test facility.
The NCAP test program has instituted two new procedural improvements to monitor for system damage. First, we began testing with less-severe tests, such as the lead vehicle moving test first, to determine if the vehicle system is capable of passing any of the tests. Second, we have instituted more rigorous visual between-vehicle inspections by the contractor during the testing. Based on our observations in testing, we believe systems that have sensor damage will likely show visible grill damage.
With the improvements in the AEB systems and refinement of our test protocol, we do not believe sensor misalignments will be a significant problem. We invite vehicle manufacturer representatives to attend each of our tests. We reserve the right to work with the vehicle manufacturers on a one-on-one basis if we have problems with the vehicles during the tests.
The Alliance and Ford asked that the AEB test procedures specify a minimum time of 90 seconds and a maximum time of 10 minutes between each test run as in Euro NCAP AEBS test procedures. Some AEB systems initiate a fail-safe suppression mechanism when multiple activations are triggered in a short time. Most systems can be activated again with an ignition key cycle. In most cases activation of the suppression mechanism can be avoided by including a time interval between individual AEB activations or by cycling the ignition. The current test procedure addresses this by checking for diagnostic test codes (DTCs) to determine if any system suppression or error codes have occurred with the sensing system software.
The agency agrees that there should be a minimum of 90 seconds between test runs and will modify the AEB test procedures to state this explicitly. We recognize that the algorithms in these vehicles look for conditions that are illogical, such as multiple activations in short periods of time, and within a single ignition cycle. The time needed to allow the subject vehicle brakes to cool and the test equipment to be reset between each test trial has always exceeded 90 seconds in the agency's testing experience. The agency will also specify in the test procedures that the vehicle ignition be cycled after every test run.
The agency believes a maximum time between test runs of 10 minutes is too short to be feasible. The test engineers need sufficient time to review data, inspect the test equipment and set up for the next test run. Also recall that the test engineers need time to ensure the vehicle brake temperatures are within specification and the brake system is ready for the next test run. Additionally, it is impractical to specify that all of the tests must be completed within 10 minute cycles while conversely specify that testing be discontinued if ambient conditions are out of specifications. At this time, we are unaware of any algorithm-based reason why testing must be resumed in less than 10 minutes.
The Alliance observed that the TTC values used in the test procedures are calculated in the same manner as they are in the current NCAP FCW test procedure, but noted that the TTC calculation equations are not included in the draft CIB and DBS test procedures. The Alliance asked that, for clarification purposes, the TTC equations that appear in Section 17.0 of the NHTSA NCAP FCW test procedure dated February 2013 be added to the CIB and DBS test procedures.
The agency acknowledges that the TTC calculations for the FCW test procedure are the same as these test procedures. The TTC calculations that are included in the NCAP FCW test procedures will be added to the AEB test procedures, as requested in the comments. This will make it clear that the TTC equations apply to the AEB test procedures as well.
NHTSA's strikeable surrogate vehicle (SSV) was discussed earlier in this notice. Multiple commenters encouraged NHTSA to harmonize with Euro NCAP and to use the ADAC EVT in lieu of the SSV. The commenters had concerns about the use of the SSV. They asked NHTSA to establish a maintenance process for the SSV. They questioned whether parts such as the MY 2011 Ford Fiesta vehicle's taillights, rear bumper reflectors and third brake light can be a part of the SSV indefinitely (
AGA said NHTSA could provide an option for manufacturers to use an alternative test devices of Euro NCAP or IIHS. Both Euro NCAP and IIHA use ADAC EVT.
Tail light availability is not expected to be a problem for the foreseeable future. However, if this should this become an issue, simulated taillights, an updated SSV shell, or potentially other changes could be made to replace the current model.
Overall, the AEB system sensors interpret the SSV appears to sensors as a genuine vehicle. Nearly all vehicle manufacturers and many suppliers have assessed how the SSV appears to the sensors used for their AEB systems. The results of these scans have been very favorable.
Although the SSV has been designed to be as durable as possible, its various components may need to be repaired or replaced over time. As with all other known surrogate vehicles used for AEB testing, the frequency of repair or replacement is strongly dependent on how the surrogate is used, particularly the number of high speed impacts sustained during testing.
With regards to availability, the specifications needed to construct the SSV are in the public domain.
While we appreciate the concerns about the SSV expressed in the comments, we will continue to specify
The Alliance said because the SSV is not readily available, its members have not been able to conduct a full set of tests to assess the repeatability and reproducibility of the SSV in comparison with other commercially available test targets.
NHTSA is aware that the SSV is a relatively new test device and that every interested entity may not have had a chance to perform a comprehensive series of SSV evaluations or seen how it is actually used. However the specifications needed to construct the SSV are in the public domain and multiple SSVs have been manufactured and sold to vehicle manufacturers and test facilities. A test report describing the SSV repeatability work performed with a Jeep Grand Cherokee has recently been released.
Commenters were concerned with the lateral restraint track (LRT). They felt the LRT was not needed. The permanent installation of the LRT used up track space and made it hard to move testing activities to another test track.
Some commenters indicated that if the LRT used to keep the SSV centered in its travel lane is white, it may affect AEB performance. This is because some camera-based AEB systems consider lane width in their control algorithms, and these algorithms may not perform correctly if the LRT is confused for a solid white lane line. Although NHTSA test data does not appear to indicate this is a common problem, the NHTSA test contractor is using a black LRT to address this potential issue. The black LRT appears more like a uniform tar strip that has been used to seal a long crack in the center of the travel lane pavement, a feature present on real-world roads.
NHTSA appreciates these concerns but believes the continued use of the LRT is important. LRT is designed to insure several things, including that the SSV will be constrained within a tight tolerance to optimize test accuracy and repeatability. Using the LRT to absolutely keep the path of the SSV within the center of the lane of travel, in conjunction with the lateral tolerances defined in the CIB and DBS test procedures, will allow the agency to test AEB systems in a situation where one vehicle is approached by another vehicle from directly behind. To reduce the potential for unnecessary interventions, some AEB systems contain algorithms that can adjust onset of the automatic brake activation as a function of lateral deviation from the center of the POV. This is because it will take less time for the driver to steer around the POV if the lateral position of the SV is biased away from its centerline. Although this may help to minimize nuisance activations in the real-world, the same algorithms may contribute to test variability during AEB NCAP evaluations if excessive lateral offset exists between the SV and POV. Since the use of the LRT prevents this from occurring, it is expected the agency's tests will allow AEB systems to best demonstrate their crash avoidance or mitigate capabilities.
Ford suggested that NHTSA use the ADAC EVT propulsion system with the SSV to increase feasibility for manufacturers. NHTSA believe the inherent design differences between the SSV and ADAC surrogates makes using the ADAC EVT propulsion system with the SSV a considerable challenge. Design changes to the SSV and/or ADAC EVT rig would be needed. It is not possible to simply substitute the SSV for the ADAC EVT surrogate on the ADAC rig as Ford suggests. Even if the ADAC EVT could be adapted, and even though it appears to track well behind a tow vehicle, the precise position of the ADAC EVT is not measured, so the lateral offset cannot be quantified.
Commenters expressed concern on the allowable lateral offset and yaw rate tolerance in the AEB test procedures placing considerable emphasis on the importance of narrowing the tolerances in these areas. AGA said the lateral offset and yaw rate in August 2014 draft test procedures (+/- 2 ft (0.3 m) lateral offset and +/- 2 deg/s yaw rate) can create a delay in AEB system response that could affect a system's performance during and AEB test. DENSO agreed that a higher tolerance in lateral offset and yaw rate tends to decrease forward looking sensor detection performance. The Alliance too weighed in on this saying, that “the variability in lateral offset is expected to have a significant impact on test reproducibility and system performance and resultant rating,” adding that the yaw rate should be +/- 1 deg/s to be consistent with the FCW test procedure given the fact that AEB systems use the same sensors as FCW systems. As discussed earlier, we have agreed to tighten the yaw rate and lateral offset tolerance. This makes the tight control provided by the LRT even more important to the performance of these tests.
Until the agency has an indication that an alternative approach to moving the SSV down a test track can ensure the narrow tolerances for lateral offset and yaw rate, the LRT will remain in the AEB test procedures. Our contractor has already installed a black LRT. Thought this does not completely disguise the restraint track, it is close to being masked for a camera-based AEB system.
NHTSA considers the rearmost portion of the SSV, or the “zero position,” to be the back of the foam bumper. The Alliance suggested the rearmost part of the SSV should be defined by its carbon fiber body, not its foam bumper. The Alliance said it has observed SV-to-SSV measurement errors of as much as 40 cm (15.7 in), and attributes them to their vehicle's sensors not being able to consistently detect the reflective panel located between the SSV's bumper foam and its cover.
It has always been the agency's intention to make the rear of the SSV foam bumper detectable to radar while still having its radar return characteristics be as realistic as possible. This is the reason NHTSA installed a radar-reflective panel between the SSV's 8 in (20.3 cm) deep foam bumper and its cover; the panel is specifically used to help radar-based systems define the rearmost part of the SSV since the foam is essentially invisible to radar. We are presently working to identify the extent to which AEB systems have problems determining the overall rearmost position of the SSV. NHTSA considers the outside rear surface of foam bumper, immediately adjacent to the radar-reflective material to be the “zero position” in its CIB and DBS tests, and is considering ways to better allow AEB systems to identify it.
Other concerns mentioned by commenters include design changes to the SSV: Increasing energy absorption and minimizing a perceived bias towards radar systems based on the SSV's appearance in certain lighting conditions which may be challenging for camera systems. We believe the SSV appears to be a real vehicle to most
Some commenters indicated NHTSA should increase the padding to the SSV to reduce the likelihood of damage to the test equipment or to the SV during an SV-to-POV impact. When designing the SSV, we attempted to balance realism, strikeability, and durability. The body structure and frame of the SSV are constructed from carbon fiber to make them stiff (so that the shape remains constant like a real car), strong, and light weight. To enable SV-to-POV impacts, the SSV frame has design elements to accommodate severe impact forces and accelerations and an 8 in (20.3 cm) deep foam bumper to attenuate the initial impact pulse. We are concerned that simply adding more padding to the rear of the SSV will reduce its realistic appearance, and potentially affect AEB system performance. Therefore, to address the potential need for additional SSV strikeability, the agency is presently considering an option to work with individual vehicle manufacturers to add strategically-placed foam to the SV front bumper to supplement the foam installed on the rear of the SSV. At this time, no changes to the appearance of the SSV are planned. Since temporary padding added to the subject vehicle does not alter that characteristics of the SSV nor affect the distance of the SSV to the vehicle sensors, we will not be adjust the zeroing procedure in the test procedure to compensate for this one-time padding addition.
With regards to sensor bias, the SSV has been designed to be as realistic as possible to all known sensors used by AEB systems. While it is true that the SSV has a strong radar presence, use of the white body color and numerous high-contrast features (
NHTSA's CIB and DBS test procedures both include a set of environmental restrictions designed to ensure that proper system functionality is realized during a vehicle's evaluation. One such restriction prohibits the SV and POV from being oriented into the sun when it is oriented 15 degrees or less from horizontal, since this can cause inoperability due to “washout” (temporary sensor blindness) in camera-based systems.
DENSO commented that, in addition to prohibiting testing with the test vehicles oriented toward the sun when the sun is at a very low angle (15 degrees or less from horizontal) to avoid camera “washout” or system inoperability, the test procedures should also prohibit testing with vehicles oriented away from the sun (with the sun at low angle) which would harmonize this issue with Euro NCAP test procedure. MEMA agreed that wash out conditions experienced in low sun angle conditions for SV and POV oriented toward the sun may also occur when they are oriented away from the sun.
To date, the agency's testing does not indicate that a low sun angle from the rear will adversely affect AEB system performance. Moreover, one of the agency's testing contractors indicates that restricting the sun angle behind as well as in front of the test vehicle will significantly reduce the hours per day that testing may be performed. If our ongoing experience suggests that this is a problem for vehicles equipped with a particular sensor or sensor set, we will consider making adjustments.
TRW inquired as to how safety systems other than AEB systems on a test vehicle would be configured during AEB testing. The company asked whether there would be provisions in the test procedure for turning off certain safety features in order to make the testing repeatable. It gave as an example some pre-crash systems that may be activated based on these tests.
Due to the complexity and variance of vehicle designs the agency will deal with system conflicts on a one-on-one basis. The agency does not specify or recommend that vehicle manufacturers design and include cut-off provisions for the sole purpose of performing AEB tests.
The AMA said that all AEB systems included in NCAP should be able to detect and register a motorcycle. If not, vehicle operators may become dependent on these new technologies and cause a crash, because the system did not detect and identify a smaller vehicle, the organization said.
AEB systems, while relatively sophisticated and available in the American new vehicle marketplace, are still nonetheless in the early stages of their development. Some may be able to detect motorcycles. Some may not be able to do so. Eventually, the sensitivity of these systems may increase to the point where detecting a motorcycle is commonplace among systems.
The agency believes it would be benefit to highway safety move forward with this program at this time, even though it does not include motorcycle detection. By including AEB systems among the advanced crash avoidance technologies it recommends to consumers in NCAP, the agency expects more and more manufacturers to equip more and more new vehicles with these systems. As a result, many rear-end crashes and the resulting injuries and deaths will be avoided. The agency believes it will be beneficial to take this step even if the systems involved are not as capable of recognizing motorcycles today.
We also do not have reason to believe that AEB systems are the type of technology likely to encourage over-reliance by drivers. DBS is activated based on driver braking input, and CIB is activated when for one reason or another, the driver has not begun to apply the brake. We do not think that in either scenario the driver is likely to drive differently under the assumption that the AEB system will perform the driver's task.
The agency will continue to follow the ongoing development and enhancement of AEB systems and look for opportunities to encourage the development and deployment of systems that detect motorcycles.
Honda asked how the interrelationship between CIB and DBS should be treated, in situations in which CIB activates before the driver applies the brakes and DBS never activates.
The brake applications used for DBS evaluations are activated at a specific point in time prior to an imminent
TRW observed that one potential future trend to watch is that as industry confidence and capability to provide CIB functionality increases and the amount of vehicle deceleration is allowed to increase and be applied earlier in the process, the need for DBS as a separate feature may diminish. The potential goal of DBS testing would become one of proving a driver intervention during an AEB event does not detract from the event's outcome, TRW said.
At this time, the agency is aware that many light vehicle DBS systems supply higher levels of braking at earlier activation times for the supplemental brake input compared to the automatic braking of CIB systems. Based on this understanding of current system design, our NCAP AEB test criteria for DBS evaluates crash avoidance resulting from higher levels of deceleration, whereas our CIB test criteria evaluates crash mitigation (with the exception of the CIB lead vehicle moving SV: 25 mph/POV: 10 mph (SV:40 km/h/POV: 16 km/h) scenario, for which crash avoidance is required). NHTSA will keep the speed reduction evaluation criteria as planned for the CIB and DBS tests.
Unless the agency uncovers a reason to be concerned about how the performance metrics of a test protocol may affect system performance in vehicles equipped with both CIB and DBS, the agency will recognize an AEB equipped vehicle as long as it passes the criteria of a given protocol, whether that occurs as a result of the activation of the particular system or a combination of systems.
Some commenters raised topics outside the scope of the notice, and they will not be addressed here.
These include: A suggested two-stage approach to adding technologies to NCAP, a suggested minimum AEB performance regulation that would function in concert with NCAP, conflicts between rating systems that could cause consumer confusion, other technologies that should be added to NCAP in the future, and a call for flashing brake lights to alert trailing drivers that an AEB system has been activated.
Other topics raised may be addressed as the agency's experience with AEB systems expands over time. These topics include: Using different equipment, including a different surrogate vehicle; a call to study the interaction of the proposed CIB/DBS systems with tests for FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 to assess whether such features should be enabled during testing and what the effect may be; a suggestion that the agency should consider the role electronic data recorders (EDRs) may play in assessing AEB false positive field performance; and concern as to how safety systems on a test vehicle other than AEB systems would be dealt with during AEB testing, such as some pre-crash systems that may be activated based on these tests.
A suggestion was made that the agency should consider the potential interactions of AEB systems with vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications technology, both in how AEB tests might be performed and what the performance specifications for those tests should be. The agency is monitoring the interaction of these capabilities.
For all the reasons stated above, we believe that it is appropriate to update NCAP to include crash imminent braking and dynamic brake support systems as Recommended Advanced Technologies.
Starting with Model Year 2018 vehicles, we will include AEB systems as a recommended technology and test such systems.
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Surface Transportation Board.
Correction to Notice of Exemption.
On August 26, 2013, Hainesport Industrial Railroad, LLC (Hainesport), a Class III railroad, filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3) for a corporate family transaction pursuant to which Hainesport would transfer ownership and operation of a line of railroad, described as the East Line, in Hainesport, N.J., to a corporate affiliate, Hainesport Secondary Railroad, LLC (Hainesport Secondary).
On August 6, 2015, Hainesport filed a petition to correct or amend the notice. According to Hainesport, the map provided with its notice incorrectly depicted the East Line. Thus, Hainesport requests that the Board substitute the map identified as Exhibit A to its petition for the map submitted in the notice. This correction is recognized here. All remaining information from the September 11, 2013 notice remains unchanged.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Department of Veteran Affairs (VA).
Notice of Amendment to System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)) all agencies are required to publish in the
Comments on the amendment of this system of records must be received no later than December 7, 2015. If no public comment is received, the new
Written comments may be submitted through
Director VA FOIA Service (005R1C), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7453.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4), (11)), notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending an existing system of records entitled “Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Records—VA” (119VA005R1C). The amended system of records is adding a Routine Use number 12, amending Categories of Individuals Covered by the System, Categories of Records in the System and Exemptions Claimed for the System.
The notice of intent to publish, and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, approved this document on October 15, 2015, for publication.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Records—VA
Records are maintained at the VA Central Office FOIA Offices, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420; AINS, Inc., 1355 Piccard Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, and all VA field facilities. A list of the field facilities may be found at the following Internet address:
This system contains records and related correspondence on individuals who have filed with VA:
a. Requests for information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), including requests for review of initial denials of such requests.
b. Requests under the provisions of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) for records about themselves where the FOIA is also relied upon to process the request and which then meet the Department of Justice's (DOJ) standard for required reporting in the Annual FOIA Report to the Attorney General of the United States.
c. All persons who have requested records from VA under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); all persons whose requests for records have been referred to VA by other Federal agencies; and all persons who have submitted appeals to the Secretary of VA under the provisions of the FOIA.
d. All persons about whom information has been requested under the provisions of the FOIA.
This system contains correspondence and other documents related to requests made by individuals to VA for:
a. Information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), including requests for review of initial denials of such requests.
b. Information under provisions of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and requests for review of initial denials of such requests made under VA's Privacy Act regulations regarding requests for records about themselves where the FOIA is also relied upon to process the request and which then meet the Department of Justice's (DOJ) standard for required reporting in the Annual FOIA Report to the Attorney General of the United States.
c. Name, home address, telephone number, email address, FOIA case numbers assigned to individual cases, and appeals, FOIA requests and appeals, responses to requests (including unredacted and redacted responsive records), determinations of appeals, correspondence with requesters and with other persons who have contacted VA in connection with requests or appeals other than requesters or other memoranda and correspondence in connection with requests or appeals.
Includes the following with any revisions and amendments:
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a); the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552); 5 U.S.C. 301; and 38 U.S.C. 501.
The system is maintained for the purpose of processing an individual's record request made under the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. These records are also used by VA to prepare reports required by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts to the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Justice. The proposed system of records will assist the Department of Veterans Affairs in carrying out its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. The records maintained in the proposed system can originate in both paper and electronic format.
System information may be accessed and used by authorized VA employees, with a legitimate need to know, to conduct duties associated with the management and operation of the FOIA-PA program. Information may also be disclosed as a routine use for the following purposes:
1. VA may disclose information from this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the performance of its statutory responsibilities for evaluating Federal programs.
2. VA may disclose information from this system of records to the Department of Justice (DOJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DOJ's request for the information, after either VA or DOJ determines that such information is
3. VA may disclose information from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from a Congressional office made at the request of that individual.
4. VA may disclose information from this system to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and General Services Administration (GSA) in records management inspections conducted under Title 44 U.S.C.
5. VA may disclose information from this system of records to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor, subcontractor, public or private agency, or other entity or individual with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform services under the contract or agreement.
6. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information in this system, except the names and home addresses of veterans and their dependents, which is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. On its own initiative, VA may also disclose the names and addresses of veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
7. VA may disclose information from this system to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discriminatory practices, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, or other functions of the Commission as authorized by law or regulation.
8. VA may disclose information from this system to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), or the Office of the Special Counsel, when requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as authorized by law.
9. VA may disclose information from this system to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), including its General Counsel, information related to the establishment of jurisdiction, investigation, and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, or in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; for it to address matters properly before the Federal Services Impasses Panel, investigate representation petitions, and conduct or supervise representation elections.
10. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information from this system to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
11. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
12. To the National Archives and Records Administration Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(b), to review administrative agency policies, procedures and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
Electronic data are maintained on Direct Access Storage Devices at AINS Inc., 1355 Piccard Drive, Rockville, Maryland. AINS Inc. stores registry tapes for disaster back up at the storage location. Registry tapes for disaster back up are also maintained at an off-site location. VA Central Office and VA field facilities also maintain paper reports and electronic data.
Records are indexed by name of requester, date and any other identifier deemed appropriate.
This list of safeguards furnished in this System of Records is not an exclusive list of measures that has been, or will be, taken to protect individually-identifiable information.
All records are maintained in compliance with applicable VA security policy directives that specify the standards that will be applied to protect sensitive personal information, including protection from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. These safeguards include restricting access to authorized personnel who have a need-to-know, using locks and password protection identification features.
Authorized personnel are required to take annual VA mandatory data privacy and security training. Access to data storage areas is restricted to authorized VA employees or contract staff who have been cleared to work by the VA Office of Security and Law Enforcement. File areas are locked after normal duty hours. VA facilities are protected from outside access by the Federal Protective Service and/or other security personnel. Security complies with applicable Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Contractors and their subcontractors who access the data are
Records will be maintained and disposed of in accordance with records disposition authority approved by the Archivist of the United States. Routine records will be disposed of when the agency determines they are no longer needed for administrative, legal, audit or other operational purposes. These retention and disposal statements are pursuant to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Record Schedules GRS-20, item 1c and GRS 24, item 6a.
Director, FOIA Service (005R1C), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420
An individual who wishes to determine whether a record is being maintained in this system under his or her name or other personnel identifier, or wants to determine the contents of such record, should submit a written request or apply in person to the last VA facility where the request or appeal was submitted or to the Director, FOIA Service (005R1C), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. Such requests must contain a reasonable description of the records requested. Inquires should also include the following:
a. Name
b. Telephone Number and Return Address
c. Date of Request or Appeal
Individuals wishing to request access to their records maintained under his or her name may write or visit the nearest VA facility or write to their regional VA Public Liaison/FOIA officer listed at
(See “Record Access Procedures above.”)
Information in this system of records is obtained from the following: requests and administrative appeals submitted by individuals and organizations pursuant to the FOIA and Privacy Acts; VA personnel assigned to handle such requests and appeals; Agency records searched and identified as responsive to such requests and appeals; and requests referred by Agencies or other entities concerning VA records.
During the course of a FOIA action, exempt materials from other systems of records may in turn become part of the case records in this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those `other' systems of records are entered into this FOIA case record, VA hereby claims the same exemptions for the records from those `other' systems that are entered into this system, as claimed for the original primary systems of records of which they are a part.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule.
This final rule will update Home Health Prospective Payment System (HH PPS) rates, including the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rates, the national per-visit rates, and the non-routine medical supply (NRS) conversion factor under the Medicare prospective payment system for home health agencies (HHAs), effective for episodes ending on or after January 1, 2016. As required by the Affordable Care Act, this rule implements the 3rd year of the 4-year phase-in of the rebasing adjustments to the HH PPS payment rates. This rule updates the HH PPS case-mix weights using the most current, complete data available at the time of rulemaking and provides a clarification regarding the use of the “initial encounter” seventh character applicable to certain ICD-10-CM code categories. This final rule will also finalize reductions to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate in CY 2016, CY 2017, and CY 2018 of 0.97 percent in each year to account for estimated case-mix growth unrelated to increases in patient acuity (nominal case-mix growth) between CY 2012 and CY 2014. In addition, this rule implements a HH value-based purchasing (HHVBP) model, beginning January 1, 2016, in which all Medicare-certified HHAs in selected states will be required to participate. Finally, this rule finalizes minor changes to the home health quality reporting program and minor technical regulations text changes.
For general information about the HH PPS please send your inquiry via email to:
In addition, because of the many terms to which we refer by abbreviation in this final rule, we are listing these abbreviations and their corresponding terms in alphabetical order below:
This final rule will update the payment rates for HHAs for calendar year (CY) 2016, as required under section 1895(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act). This reflects the 3rd year of the 4-year phase-in of the rebasing adjustments to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate, the national per-visit rates, and the NRS conversion factor finalized in the CY 2014 HH PPS final rule (78 FR 72256), as required under section 3131(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-148), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) (collectively referred to as the “Affordable Care Act”).
This rule will update the case-mix weights under section 1895(b)(4)(A)(i) and (b)(4)(B) of the Act and provides a clarification regarding the use of the “initial encounter” seventh character applicable to certain ICD-10-CM code categories. This final rule will finalize reductions to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate in CY 2016, CY 2017, and CY 2018 of 0.97 percent in each year to account for case-mix growth unrelated to increases in patient acuity (nominal case-mix growth) between CY 2012 and CY 2014 under the authority of section 1895(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act. In addition, this rule finalizes our proposal to implement an HH Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) model, in which certain Medicare-certified HHAs are required to participate, beginning January 1, 2016 under the authority of section 1115A of the Act. Finally, this rule will finalize changes to the home health quality reporting program requirements under section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v)(II) of the Act and will finalize minor technical regulations text changes in 42 CFR parts 409, 424, and 484 to better align the payment requirements with recent statutory and regulatory changes for home health services.
As required by section 3131(a) of the Affordable Care Act, and finalized in the CY 2014 HH final rule, “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update for 2014, Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements, and Cost Allocation of Home Health Survey Expenses” (78 FR 77256, December 2, 2013), we are implementing the 3rd year of the 4-year phase-in of the rebasing adjustments to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment amount, the national per-visit rates and the NRS conversion factor in section III.C.3. The rebasing adjustments for CY 2016 will reduce the national, standardized 60-day episode payment amount by $80.95, increase the national per-visit payment amounts by 3.5 percent of the national per-visit payment amounts in CY 2010 with the increases ranging from $1.79 for home health aide services to $6.34 for medical social services, and reduce the NRS conversion factor by 2.82 percent.
In the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66072), we finalized our proposal to recalibrate the case-mix weights every year with more current data. In section III.B.1 of this rule, we are recalibrating the HH PPS case-mix weights, using the most current cost and utilization data available, in a budget neutral manner. In addition, in section III.B.2 of this rule, we are finalizing reductions to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate in CY 2016, CY 2017, and CY 2018 of 0.97 percent in each year to account for estimated case-mix growth unrelated to increases in patient acuity (nominal case-mix growth) between CY 2012 and CY 2014. In section III.B.3 of this rule we are providing a clarification regarding the use of the “initial encounter” seventh character, applicable to certain ICD-10-CM code categories, under the HH PPS. In section III.C.1 of this rule, we are updating the payment rates under the HH PPS by the home health payment update percentage of 1.9 percent (using the 2010-based Home Health Agency (HHA) market basket update of 2.3 percent, minus 0.4 percentage point for productivity as required by section 1895(b)(3)(B)(vi)(I) of the Act. In the CY 2015 final rule (79 FR 66083 through 66087), we incorporated new geographic area designations, set out in a February 28, 2013 Office of Management and Budget
In section IV of this rule, we are finalizing our proposal to implement a HHVBP model that will begin on January 1, 2016. Medicare-certified HHAs selected for inclusion in the HHVBP model will be required to compete for payment adjustments to their current PPS reimbursements based on quality performance. A competing HHA is defined as an agency that has a current Medicare certification and that is being paid by CMS for home health care delivered within any of the states selected in accordance with the HHVBP Model's selection methodology.
Finally, section V of this rule includes changes to the home health quality reporting program, including one new quality measure, the establishment of a minimum threshold for submission of Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) assessments for purposes of quality reporting compliance, and submission dates for Home Health Care Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey (HHCAHPS) Survey through CY 2018.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105-33, enacted August 5, 1997), significantly changed the way Medicare pays for Medicare HH services. Section 4603 of the BBA mandated the development of the HH PPS. Until the implementation of the HH PPS on October 1, 2000, HHAs received payment under a retrospective reimbursement system.
Section 4603(a) of the BBA mandated the development of a HH PPS for all Medicare-covered HH services provided under a plan of care (POC) that were paid on a reasonable cost basis by adding section 1895 of the Social Security Act (the Act), entitled “Prospective Payment For Home Health Services.” Section 1895(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish a HH PPS for all costs of HH services paid under Medicare.
Section 1895(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the following: (1) The computation of a standard prospective payment amount include all costs for HH services covered and paid for on a reasonable cost basis and that such amounts be initially based on the most recent audited cost report data available to the Secretary; and (2) the standardized prospective payment amount be adjusted to account for the effects of case-mix and wage levels among HHAs.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B) of the Act addresses the annual update to the standard prospective payment amounts by the HH applicable percentage increase. Section 1895(b)(4) of the Act governs the payment computation. Sections 1895(b)(4)(A)(i) and (b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act require the standard prospective payment amount to be adjusted for case-mix and geographic differences in wage levels. Section 1895(b)(4)(B) of the Act requires the establishment of an appropriate case-mix change adjustment factor for significant variation in costs among different units of services.
Similarly, section 1895(b)(4)(C) of the Act requires the establishment of wage adjustment factors that reflect the relative level of wages, and wage-related costs applicable to HH services furnished in a geographic area compared to the applicable national average level. Under section 1895(b)(4)(C) of the Act, the wage-adjustment factors used by the Secretary may be the factors used under section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Act.
Section 1895(b)(5) of the Act gives the Secretary the option to make additions or adjustments to the payment amount otherwise paid in the case of outliers due to unusual variations in the type or amount of medically necessary care. Section 3131(b)(2) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the Affordable Care Act) (Pub. L. 111-148, enacted March 23, 2010) revised section 1895(b)(5) of the Act so that total outlier payments in a given year would not exceed 2.5 percent of total payments projected or estimated. The provision also made permanent a 10 percent agency-level outlier payment cap.
In accordance with the statute, as amended by the BBA, we published a final rule in the July 3, 2000
Section 5201(c) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) (Pub. L. 109-171, enacted February 8, 2006) added new section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) to the Act, requiring HHAs to submit data for purposes of measuring health care quality, and links the quality data submission to the annual applicable percentage increase. This data submission requirement is applicable for CY 2007 and each subsequent year. If an HHA does not submit quality data, the HH market basket percentage increase is reduced by 2 percentage points. In the November 9, 2006
The Affordable Care Act made additional changes to the HH PPS. One of the changes in section 3131 of the Affordable Care Act is the amendment to section 421(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173, enacted on December 8, 2003) as amended by section 5201(b) of the DRA. Section 421(a) of the MMA, as amended by section 3131 of the Affordable Care Act, requires that the Secretary increase, by 3 percent, the payment amount otherwise made under section 1895 of the Act, for HH services furnished in a rural area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Act) with respect to episodes and visits ending on or after April 1, 2010, and before January 1, 2016. Section 210 of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) (Public Law 114-10) amended section 421(a) of the MMA to extend the rural add-on for two more years. Section 421(a) of the MMA, as amended by section 210 of the MACRA, requires that the Secretary increase, by 3 percent, the payment amount otherwise made under section 1895 of the Act, for HH services provided in a rural area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Act) with respect to episodes and visits ending on or after April 1, 2010, and before January 1, 2018.
Generally, Medicare makes payment under the HH PPS on the basis of a national standardized 60-day episode payment rate that is adjusted for the applicable case-mix and wage index. The national standardized 60-day episode rate includes the six HH disciplines (skilled nursing, HH aide, physical therapy, speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, and medical social services). Payment for non-routine supplies (NRS) is no longer part of the national standardized 60-day episode rate and is computed by multiplying the relative weight for a particular NRS severity level by the NRS conversion factor (See section II.D.4.e). Payment for durable medical equipment covered under the HH benefit is made outside the HH PPS payment system. To adjust for case-mix, the HH PPS uses a 153-category case-mix classification system to assign patients to a home health resource group (HHRG). The clinical severity level, functional severity level, and service utilization are computed from responses to selected data elements in the OASIS assessment instrument and are used to place the patient in a particular HHRG. Each HHRG has an associated case-mix weight which is used in calculating the payment for an episode.
For episodes with four or fewer visits, Medicare pays national per-visit rates based on the discipline(s) providing the services. An episode consisting of four or fewer visits within a 60-day period receives what is referred to as a low-utilization payment adjustment (LUPA). Medicare also adjusts the national standardized 60-day episode payment rate for certain intervening events that are subject to a partial episode payment adjustment (PEP adjustment). For certain cases that exceed a specific cost threshold, an outlier adjustment may also be available.
As required by section 1895(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we have historically updated the HH PPS rates annually in the
To account for the changes in case-mix that were not related to an underlying change in patient health status, we implemented a reduction, over 4 years, to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rates. That reduction was to be 2.75 percent per year for 3 years beginning in CY 2008 and 2.71 percent for the fourth year in CY 2011. In the CY 2011 HH PPS final rule (76 FR 68532), we updated our analyses of case-mix change and finalized a reduction of 3.79 percent, instead of 2.71 percent, for CY 2011 and deferred finalizing a payment reduction for CY 2012 until further study of the case-mix change data and methodology was completed.
In the CY 2012 HH PPS final rule (76 FR 68526), we updated the 60-day national episode rates and the national per-visit rates. In addition, as discussed in the CY 2012 HH PPS final rule (76 FR 68528), our analysis indicated that there was a 22.59 percent increase in overall case-mix from 2000 to 2009 and that only 15.76 percent of that overall observed case-mix percentage increase was due to real case-mix change. As a result of our analysis, we identified a 19.03 percent nominal increase in case-mix. At that time, to fully account for the 19.03 percent nominal case-mix growth identified from 2000 to 2009, we finalized a 3.79 percent payment reduction in CY 2012 and a 1.32 percent payment reduction for CY 2013.
In the CY 2013 HH PPS final rule (77 FR 67078), we implemented a 1.32 percent reduction to the payment rates for CY 2013 to account for nominal case-mix growth from 2000 through 2010. When taking into account the total measure of case-mix change (23.90 percent) and the 15.97 percent of total case-mix change estimated as real from 2000 to 2010, we obtained a final nominal case-mix change measure of 20.08 percent from 2000 to 2010 (0.2390*(1−0.1597)=0.2008). To fully account for the remainder of the 20.08 percent increase in nominal case-mix beyond that which was accounted for in previous payment reductions, we estimated that the percentage reduction to the national, standardized 60-day episode rates for nominal case-mix change would be 2.18 percent. Although we considered proposing a 2.18 percent reduction to account for the remaining increase in measured nominal case-mix, we finalized the 1.32 percent payment reduction to the national, standardized
Section 3131(a) of the Affordable Care Act requires that, beginning in CY 2014, we apply an adjustment to the national, standardized 60-day episode rate and other amounts that reflect factors such as changes in the number of visits in an episode, the mix of services in an episode, the level of intensity of services in an episode, the average cost of providing care per episode, and other relevant factors. Additionally, we must phase in any adjustment over a 4 year period in equal increments, not to exceed 3.5 percent of the amount (or amounts) as of the date of enactment of the Affordable Care Act, and fully implement the rebasing adjustments by CY 2017. The statute specifies that the maximum rebasing adjustment is to be no more than 3.5 percent per year of the CY 2010 rates. Therefore, in the CY 2014 HH PPS final rule (78 FR 72256) for each year, CY 2014 through CY 2017, we finalized a fixed-dollar reduction to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate of $80.95 per year, increases to the national per-visit payment rates per year as reflected in Table 2, and a decrease to the NRS conversion factor of 2.82 percent per year. We also finalized three separate LUPA add-on factors for skilled nursing, physical therapy, and speech-language pathology and removed 170 diagnosis codes from assignment to diagnosis groups in the HH PPS Grouper. In the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66032), we implemented the 2nd year of the 4 year phase-in of the rebasing adjustments to the HH PPS payment rates and made changes to the HH PPS case-mix weights. In addition, we simplified the face-to-face encounter regulatory requirements and the therapy reassessment timeframes.
HHS has a number of initiatives designed to encourage and support the adoption of health information technology and to promote nationwide health information exchange to improve health care. As discussed in the August 2013 Statement “Principles and Strategies for Accelerating Health Information Exchange” (available at
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) has released a document entitled “Connecting Health and Care for the Nation: A Shared Nationwide Interoperability Roadmap” (available at
We encourage stakeholders to utilize health information exchange and certified health IT to effectively and efficiently help providers improve internal care delivery practices, engage patients in their care, support management of care across the continuum, enable the reporting of
We received 118 timely comments from the public. The following sections, arranged by subject area, include a summary of the public comments received, and our responses.
In the CY 2016 HH PPS proposed rule (80 FR 39840), we provided a summary of analysis conducted on FY 2013 HHA cost report data and how such data, if used, would impact our estimate of the percentage difference between Medicare payments and HHA costs. In addition, we also provided a summary of MedPAC's Report to the Congress on home health payment rebasing and presented information on Medicare home health utilization using CY 2014 HHA claims data (the 1st year of the 4 year phase-in of the rebasing adjustments mandated by section 3131(a) the Affordable Care Act). We will continue to monitor the impact of future payment and policy changes and will provide the industry with periodic updates on our analysis in future rulemaking and/or announcements on the HHA Center Web page at:
For CY 2014, as part of the rebasing effort mandated by the Affordable Care Act, we reset the HH PPS case-mix weights, lowering the average case-mix weight to 1.0000. To lower the HH PPS case-mix weights to 1.0000, each HH PPS case-mix weight was decreased by the same factor (1.3464), thereby maintaining the same relative values between the weights. This “resetting” of the HH PPS case-mix weights was done in a budget neutral manner by inflating the national, standardized 60-day episode rate by the same factor (1.3464) that was used to decrease the weights. For CY 2015, we finalized a policy to annually recalibrate the HH PPS case-mix weights—adjusting the weights relative to one another—using the most current, complete data available. To recalibrate the HH PPS case-mix weights for CY 2016, we propose to use the same methodology finalized in the CY 2008 HH PPS final rule (72 FR 49762), the CY 2012 HH PPS final rule (76 FR 68526), and the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66032). Annual recalibration of the HH PPS case-mix weights ensures that the case-mix weights reflect, as accurately as possible, current home health resource use and changes in utilization patterns.
To generate the proposed CY 2016 HH PPS case-mix weights, we used CY 2014 home health claims data (as of December 31, 2014) with linked OASIS data. For this CY 2016 HH PPS final rule, we used CY 2014 home health claims data (as of June 30, 2015) with linked OASIS data to generate the final CY 2016 HH PPS case-mix weights. These data are the most current and complete data available at this time. The tables below have been revised to reflect the results using the updated data. The process we used to calculate the HH PPS case-mix weights are outlined below.
In updating the four-equation model for CY 2016 using 2014 data (the last update to the four-equation model for CY 2015 used 2013 data), there were few changes to the point values for the variables in the four-equation model. These relatively minor changes reflect the change in the relationship between the grouper variables and resource use between 2013 and 2014. The CY 2016 four-equation model resulted in 124 point-giving variables being used in the model (as compared to the 120 point-giving variables for the 2015 recalibration). There were eight variables that were added to the model and four variables that were dropped from the model due to the absence of additional resources associated with the variable. The points for 24 variables increased in the CY 2016 four-equation model and the points for 38 variables decreased in the CY 2016 4-equation model. There were 54 variables with the same point values.
In updating the four-equation model for CY 2016 using 2014 data (the last update to the four-equation model for CY 2015 used 2013 data), there were few changes to the point values for the variables in the four-equation model. These relatively minor changes reflect the change in the relationship between the grouper variables and resource use between 2013 and 2014. The CY 2016 four-equation model resulted in 124 point-giving variables being used in the model (as compared to the 120 point-giving variables for the 2015 recalibration). There were eight variables that were added to the model and four variables that were dropped from the model due to the absence of additional resources associated with the variable. The points for 24 variables increased in the CY 2016 four-equation model and the points for 38 variables decreased in the CY 2016 4-equation model. There were 54 variables with the same point values.
• Step 1: First and second episodes, 0-13 therapy visits.
• Step 2.1: First and second episodes, 14-19 therapy visits.
• Step 2.2: Third episodes and beyond, 14-19 therapy visits.
• Step 3: Third episodes and beyond, 0-13 therapy visits.
• Step 4: Episodes with 20+ therapy visits.
We then divide the distribution of the clinical score for episodes within a step such that a third of episodes are classified as low clinical score, a third of episodes are classified as medium clinical score, and a third of episodes are classified as high clinical score. The same approach is then done looking at the functional score. It was not always possible to evenly divide the episodes within each step into thirds due to many episodes being clustered around one particular score.
To ensure the changes to the HH PPS case-mix weights are implemented in a budget neutral manner, we apply a case-mix budget neutrality factor to the CY 2016 national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate (see section III.C.3. of this final rule). The case-mix budget neutrality factor is calculated as the ratio of total payments when the CY 2016 HH PPS grouper and case-mix weights (developed using CY 2014 claims data) are applied to CY 2014 utilization (claims) data to total payments when the CY 2015 HH PPS grouper and case-mix weights (developed using CY 2013 claims data) are applied to CY 2014 utilization data. Using CY 2014 claims data as of December 31, 2014, we calculated the case-mix budget neutrality factor for CY 2016 to be 1.0141. Updating our analysis with 2014 claims data as of June 30, 2015, we calculated a final case-mix budget neutrality factor for CY 2016 of 1.0187.
The following is a summary of the comments and our responses to comments on the CY 2016 case-mix weights.
As we noted in the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66067), decreases in the case-mix weights for the low therapy case-mix groups and increases in the case-mix weights for the high therapy case-mix groups is generally attributable to shifts away from the use of home health aides and a shift to either more nursing or more therapy care across all therapy groups. While some of the low therapy groups did add more skilled nursing visits, most of the high therapy groups added more occupational therapy (OT) and speech-language pathology (SLP), which have substantially higher Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) average hourly wage values compared to skilled nursing. In addition, while the average number of total visits per episode has decreased overall, it decreased disproportionately more for the no/low therapy case-mix groups. These utilization changes result in changes to the weights observed by the commenter, specifically, the decreases in the case-mix weights for the low or no therapy groups and increases in the case-mix weights for the high therapy groups.
Comparing the final CY 2016 HH PPS case-mix weights (Table 5) to the final CY 2015 HH PPS case-mix weights (79 FR 66062), the case-mix weights change very little, with most case-mix weights either increasing or decreasing by 1 to 2 percent with no case-mix weights increasing by more than 3 percent or decreasing by more than 4 percent. The aggregate decreases in the case-mix weights are offset by the case-mix budget neutrality factor, which is applied to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate. In other words, although the case-mix weights themselves may increase or decrease from year-to-year, we correspondingly offset any estimated decreases in total payments under the HH PPS, as result of the case-mix recalibration, by applying a budget neutrality factor to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate. For CY 2016, the case-mix budget neutrality factor will be 1.87 percent as described above. For CY 2015, the case-mix budget neutrality factor was 3.66 percent (79 FR 66088). In addition, when the CY 2014 case-mix weights were reset to 1.0000 by decreasing the case-mix weights by 1.3464, we correspondingly increased the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate by the same factor (1.3464) as part of the rebasing of the HH PPS payment rates required by the Affordable Care Act (78 FR 72273). The recalibration of the case-mix weights is not intended to increase or decrease overall HH PPS payments, but rather is used to update the relative differences in resource use amongst the 153 groups in the HH PPS case-mix system and maintain the level of aggregate payments before application of any other adjustments.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act gives the Secretary the authority to implement payment reductions for nominal case-mix growth (that is, case-mix growth unrelated to changes in patient acuity). Previously, we accounted for nominal case-mix growth through case-mix reductions implemented from 2008 through 2013 (76 FR 68528-68543). As stated in the 2013 final rule, the goal of the reductions for nominal case-mix growth is to better align payments with real changes in patient severity (77 FR 67077). Our analysis of data from CY 2000 through CY 2010 found that only 15.97 percent of the total case-mix change was real and 84.03 percent of total case-mix change was nominal (77 FR 41553). In the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66032), we estimated that total case-mix increased by 2.76 percent between CY 2012 and CY 2013 and in applying the 15.97 percent estimate of real case-mix growth to the estimate of total case-mix growth, we estimated nominal case-mix growth to be 2.32 percent (2.76 − (2.76 × 0.1597)). However, for 2015, we did not implement a reduction to the 2015 national, standardized 60-day episode payment amount to account for nominal case-mix growth, but stated that we would continue to monitor case-mix growth and may consider proposing nominal case-mix reductions in the future. Since the publication of 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66032), MedPAC reported on their assessment of the impact of the mandated rebasing adjustments on quality of and beneficiary access to home health care as required by section 3131(a) of the Affordable Care Act. As noted in section III.A.2 of the proposed rule, MedPAC concluded that quality of care and beneficiary access to care are unlikely to be negatively affected by the rebasing adjustments. For the proposed rule, we further estimated that case-mix increased by 1.41 percent between CY 2013 and CY 2014 using preliminary CY 2014 home health claims data (as of December 31, 2014) with linked OASIS data. In applying the 15.97 percent estimate of real case-mix growth to the total estimated case-mix growth from CY 2013 to CY 2014 (1.41 percent), we estimated that nominal case-mix growth to be 1.18 percent (1.41 − (1.41 × 0.1597)). Given the observed nominal case-mix growth of 2.32 percent in 2013 and 1.18 percent in 2014, we estimated that the reduction to offset the nominal case-mix growth for these 2 years would be 3.41 percent (1 − 1/(1.0232 × 1.0118) = 0.0341).
We proposed to implement this 3.41 percent reduction in equal increments over 2 years. Specifically, we proposed to apply a 1.72 percent (1 − 1/(1.0232
In updating our analysis for the final rule and in reassessing our methodology in response to comments, as discussed further below in this section, we used a more familiar methodology (one used in the past) to measure case-mix growth. We first calculated the average case-mix index for 2012, 2013, and 2014 before comparing the average case-mix index for CY 2012 to CY 2013 and the average case-mix index for CY 2013 to CY 2014 to calculate the total case-mix growth between the years. To make the comparison between the 2013 average case-mix index and the 2014 average case-mix index, we had to inflate the 2014 average case-mix index (multiply it by 1.3464) before doing the comparison. We inflated the 2014 average case-mix index by 1.3464 to offset the decrease by that same factor when the CY 2014 case-mix weights were reset to 1.0000 in the CY 2014 HH PPS final rule (78 FR 72256). By first calculating the average case-mix index for 2012, 2013, and 2014 before comparing the average case-mix index for CY 2012 to CY 2013 and then comparing the average case-mix index for CY 2013 to CY 2014 to calculate the total case-mix growth between the years, we used a more familiar methodology than what was done for the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule and the CY 2016 HH PPS proposed rule. In those rules, we instead simulated total payments using case-mix weights from 2 consecutive years (used to calculate the case-mix budget neutrality factor when recalibrating the case-mix weights) and isolated the portion of the budget neutrality factor that was due to changes in case-mix. Calculating the average case-mix index in a given year, and comparing indices across years, better aligns with how CMS historically measured case-mix growth in previous years and is a methodology that was thoroughly vetted in previous rulemaking. In addition, we believe that this more familiar methodology results in a more straightforward measure of case-mix growth between 2012 and 2014, given that annual recalibration of the case-mix weights did not begin until CY 2015.
Using this methodology, we estimate that the average case-mix for 2012 was 1.3610 and that the average case-mix for 2013 was 1.3900.
Using the 2.13 percent estimate of total case-mix growth between CY 2012 and CY 2013, we estimate nominal case-mix growth to be 1.79 percent (2.13 − (2.13 × 0.1597) = 1.79). Similarly, using the 1.37 percent estimate of total case-mix growth between CY 2013 and CY 2014, we estimate nominal case-mix growth to be 1.15 percent (1.37 − (1.37 × 0.1597) = 1.15). Using the updated estimates of case-mix growth between 2012 and 2013 and between 2013 and 2014, we estimate that the reduction to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate needed to offset the nominal case-mix growth from 2012 through 2014 would be 2.88 percent (1 − 1/(1.0179 × 1.0115) = 0.0288). If we finalized the 2 year phase-in described in the proposed rule, we would need to implement a reduction of 1.45 percent to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate each year for 2 years, CY 2016 and CY 2017, to account for nominal case-mix growth from 2012 through 2014 (1 − 1/(1.0179 × 1.0115)
In the CY 2016 HH PPS proposed rule, we solicited comments on the proposed reduction to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment amount in CY 2016 and in CY 2017 to account for nominal case-mix growth from CY 2012 through CY 2014 and the associated changes in the regulations text at § 484.220 in section VII. The following is a summary of the comments and our responses.
In addition, we note that there is prior precedent for applying historical estimates of real case-mix growth on more current data to set payment rates. In the rate year (RY) 2008 and the RY 2009 LTCH final rules, an estimate of the percentage of real case-mix growth from a prior time period was applied to the total case-mix growth from FY 2004 to FY 2005 and from FY2005 to FY 2006 in determining the RY 2008 and RY 2009 federal rate updates (72 FR 26889 and 73 FR 26805).
With regard to the recommendation that the estimates should be informed by clinical evaluation, we note that CMS' case-mix change model, developed by Abt Associates, only includes a few variables that are derived from OASIS assessments (measures of patient living arrangement) because the OASIS items can be affected by changes in coding practices. It is not practical to consider other types of home health clinical data (for example, from medical charts) in the model given the resources available.
We note that as a result of the comments we received expressing concerns about our methodology and questioning the case-mix growth estimates we presented in the proposed rule, we did re-evaluate the methodology to determine total case-mix growth and are moving forward with a more familiar, and slightly more accurate, methodology (one used in the past) to measure case-mix growth (as described above). The methodology results in the calculation of a 1.45 percent reduction each year in CY 2016 and CY 2017 to account for nominal case-mix growth from 2012 to 2014 (instead of the 1.72 percent reduction described in the CY 2016 proposed rule).
In measuring case-mix growth, we are factoring in the removal of the ICD-9-CM codes from the CY 2014 HH PPS Grouper into our assessment of case-mix growth from 2013 to 2014. We used the 2013 grouper and 2013 case-mix weights to calculate the average case-mix index for 2013. Then we used the 2014 grouper, which excluded ICD-9-CM codes found to be rarely used and/or not associated with resource use increases, and 2014 case-mix weights, to calculate the average case-mix index for 2014. Comparing the 2013 average case-mix index to the 2014 average case-mix index (multiplied by 1.3464 in order to make the comparison), we obtained an estimate of case-mix growth which factors in the removal of the ICD-9 codes. We estimated 1.37 percent growth in total case-mix even after taking out the ICD-9-CM codes in 2014. We will continue to monitor case-mix growth and may examine the effects of the annual recalibrations on future case-mix growth.
One commenter stated that the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) are tasked with finding instances of inappropriate coding and that the industry should not be penalized for inappropriate coding that the MACs were unable to find. The commenter also stated that the proposed reductions are a “double whammy” because the claims that were identified as erroneously billed have already been adjusted and any identified overpayments have been recovered and that CMS is attempting to recover even more than what was in error through the proposed reductions. In addition, the commenter questioned why there have not been more denials if there has been widespread up-coding, as suggested by CMS' analysis.
While certain commenters seem to assume that CMS can precisely identify those agencies practicing abusive coding, we do not agree that agency-specific case-mix levels can precisely distinguish the agencies that engage in abusive coding from all others. System wide, case-mix levels have risen over time throughout the country, while patient characteristics data indicate little real change in patient severity over time. That is, the main problem is not the level of case-mix billed by any
In terms of recoupments that correspond to claims denied after they were reviewed, such would typically be reflected in the claims data we used in our case-mix analysis. In the case where a paid-claim dispute is still active, because the volume is so low, this data would likely have little to no effect on our determination of nominal case-mix growth. In addition, while we appreciate the commenters' suggestion, targeted claim review on a scale that would be required to counteract the broad-based uptrend in case-mix weights would be resource-intensive and not feasible.
While resetting the weights to 1.0000 and doing annual recalibrations may potentially reduce future nominal case-mix growth, it does not offset the nominal case-mix growth previously unaccounted for, particularly for those last few years before annual recalibrations began. We note that there is a two year lag between the data used to recalibrate the case-mix weights and the year that the weights will be implemented and we use the same claims data when comparing payments and developing the budget neutrality factor. If that utilization in the claims data is too high, it is built into the payments for both the future year's case mix weights and the previous year's case mix weights on which the recalibration is based, and so that increased utilization ends up being carried forward. In other words, the recalibration is adjusting for the next year's case mix change as compared to the previous one, but, barring additional action, will not (even in future years) adjust for unaccounted nominal case mix growth already built in to the system.
With regard to the commenters' concerns about congressional intent, we do not believe that application of the case-mix adjustment is contrary to congressional intent. We have received input from stakeholders and appreciate their comments but believe our final policy is within the authority under the statute and is consistent with congressional intent. Moreover, this policy reflects our goal to better align Medicare reimbursement with real changes in patient severity. With regard to the comment about phasing-in the reductions over more years, we note that in response to comments, we are phasing-in the case-mix reductions over 3 years (CY 2016, CY 2017, and CY 2018) rather than the 2 years (CY 2016 and CY 2017) described in the proposed rule. Specifically, we will be finalizing a 0.97 percent reduction each year in CY 2016, CY 2017, and CY 2018 to account for nominal case-mix growth from CY 2012 through CY 2014 (1 − 1/(1.0179 × 1.0115)
In their March 2009 Report to the Congress, MedPAC stated that hospital-based providers have a lower case-mix index, which suggests that they serve less costly patients.
Furthermore, in their 2013 Report to Congress, MedPAC stated “low cost growth or no cost growth has been typical for home health care, and in some years we have observed a decline in cost per episode. The ability of HHAs to keep costs low has contributed to the high margins under the Medicare PPS.” Our analysis of 2012 and 2013 cost report data supports MedPAC's statement about low or no cost growth and suggests that the cost of 60 day home health episodes has decreased since 2011. In the CY 2014 final rule, we estimated the cost of a 60-day episode in 2011 to be $2,453.71 using CY 2011 Medicare claims data and 2011 Medicare cost report data (78 FR 72277). In the CY 2015 proposed rule, we estimated the cost of a 60-day episode in 2012 to be $2,413.82 using CY 2012 Medicare claims data and FY 2012 Medicare cost report data (79 FR 38371). In the CY 2016 proposed rule, we estimated the cost of a 60-day episode in 2013 to be $2,402.11 using CY 2013 Medicare claims data and FY 2013 Medicare cost report data (80 FR 39846).
In addition, we note that in their 2013 Report to Congress, MedPAC stated that during the interim payment system (1997-2000), when payments dropped by about 50 percent in two years, many agencies exited the program. However, new agencies entered the program (about 200 new agencies a year) and existing agencies expanded their service areas to enter markets left by exiting agencies. This is due in part to the low capital requirements for home health care services that allow the industry to react rapidly when the supply of agencies changes or contracts. Reviews of access found that access to care remained adequate during this period despite a substantial decline in the number of agencies (Liu
With regard to the comments about the overall margin, we note that as stated in the CY 2014 final rule, Medicare has never set payments so as to cross-subsidize other payers. Indeed, section 1861(v)(1)(A) of the Act states “under the methods of determining costs, the necessary costs of efficiently delivering covered services to individuals covered by the insurance programs established by this title will not be borne by individuals not so covered, and the costs with respect to individuals not so covered will not be borne by such insurance programs.” As MedPAC stated in its March 2011 Report to Congress, cross-subsidization is not advisable for two significant reasons: “Raising Medicare rates to supplement low Medicaid payments would result in poorly targeted subsidies. Facilities with high shares of Medicare payments—presumably the facilities that need revenues the least—would receive the most in subsidies from the higher Medicare payments, while facilities with low Medicare shares—presumably the facilities with the greatest need—would receive the smallest subsidies. Finally, increased Medicare payment rates could encourage states to further reduce their Medicaid payments and, in turn, create pressure to raise Medicare rates” (78 FR 72284).
In addition, as described in the CY 2016 proposed rule, CMS has awarded a follow-on contract to Abt Associates to further explore margin differences across patient characteristics and possible payment methodology changes suggested by the results of the home health study. We presented several model options under development in the CY 2016 proposed rule and may consider implementing payment reform to address the margin differences across patient characteristics in future rulemaking (80 FR 39865). With regard to the comment about patients in rural areas, we note that episodes provided in rural areas will continue to receive a three percent add-on payment in CY 2016.
Commenters did not provide specific information about why they believe payment reductions would reduce the quality of care. MedPAC estimates that the Medicare margin for 2015 will be 10.3 percent, which should support current levels of quality. We also believe that policymaking in the quality improvement area should help to ensure quality advances. The HHVBP described in this final rule will be implemented on January 1, 2016, further enhancing quality-related incentives. While we do not anticipate significant negative impacts of this rule, we will continue to closely monitor the effects of the payments adjustments on HHAs, as well as on beneficiaries' access and quality of care.
We note that comments referencing coding improvements, such as increasing accuracy, do not recognize that such improvements are an inappropriate basis for increased payment. We believe that measurable changes in patient severity and patient need are appropriate bases for changes in payment. Our analysis found only small changes in patient severity and need.
With regard to the comments about the baseline, we note that in our May 2007 proposed rule and our August 2007 final rule, we described the IPS samples and PPS samples that were used to calculate case-mix change. We remind the commenters that 313,447 observations is an extremely large sample by statistical standards, and that agencies began collecting OASIS data in 1999, following issuance of a series of regulations beginning on January 25, 1999 (64 FR 3764). Most of the data we used for the baseline period come from the first 3 quarters of the year 2000—months after collection was mandated to begin in August 1999. By 2000 the vast majority of agencies were complying with the reporting requirements. Indirect evidence that the data from the early years of the HH PPS were sufficiently reliable comes from model validation analysis we conducted during that period. Validation of the 80-group model on a large 19-month claims sample ending June 2002 (N = 469,010 claims linked to OASIS) showed that the goodness-of-fit of the model was comparable to the fit statistic from the original Abt Associates case-mix sample (0.33 vs. 0.34), notwithstanding that average total resources per episode declined by 20 percent. That analysis
3. Clarification Regarding the Use of the “Initial Encounter” Seventh Character, Applicable to Certain ICD-10-CM Code Categories, under the HH PPS
The ICD-10-CM coding guidelines regarding the seventh character assignment for diagnosis codes under Chapter 19, Injury, poisoning, and certain other consequences of external causes (S00-T88), were revised in the Draft 2015 ICD-10-CM, The Completed Official Draft Code Set. Based upon the 2015 revised coding guidance above, certain initial encounters are appropriate when the patient is receiving active treatment during a home health episode.
The decision to eliminate the seventh character initial encounter for the S and T ICD-10-CM codes from the HH PPS ICD-10-CM translation list was based, not only on the most current coding conventions and guidelines that were available at that time, but also in collaboration with the cooperating parties of the ICD-10 Coding Committee (the American Health Information Management Association, the American Hospital Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, and CMS) who confirmed that initial encounter extensions were not appropriate for care in the home health setting. Code extensions D, E, F, G, H, J, K, M, N, P, Q and R indicate the patient is being treated for a subsequent encounter (care for the injury during the healing or recovery phase) and were included in the translation list in place of the initial encounter extensions. CMS provided the draft translation list to the public on the CMS Web site at
Since the publication of the CY 2014 HH PPS final rule, the ICD-10-CM coding guidelines regarding the use of the seventh character assignment for diagnosis codes under Chapter 19, Injury, poisoning, and certain other consequences of external causes (S00-T88), were revised in the Draft 2015 ICD-10-CM, The Completed Official Draft Code Set. Specifically, in March of 2015, the coding guidelines were revised to clarify that the designation of an initial encounter is based on whether a patient is receiving active treatment for the condition for which the code describes. Initial encounters are not based on chronology of care or whether the patient is seeing the same or a new provider for the same condition. Examples of active treatment are: Surgical treatment, emergency department encounter, and evaluation and continuing treatment by the same or a different physician. Based on these revisions, it is possible for a home health agency to use a diagnosis code with a seventh character “A” (an initial encounter) for certain conditions. A clinical example of this could include a patient who was in the acute care hospital for IV antibiotics for a post-surgical wound infection and who is discharged to home health on IV antibiotics for ongoing treatment of the surgical wound infection. This would be considered active treatment as the surgical wound infection requires continued IV antibiotics.
The coding guidelines state to assign the seventh character “D”, indicating a subsequent encounter, for encounters after the patient has received active treatment of the condition and is receiving routine care for the condition during the healing or recovery phase. Examples of subsequent care include: cast change or removal, an x-ray to check healing status of fracture, removal of external or internal fixation device,
We recognize that this revision may have caused some confusion among home health providers and that there may be subtle clinical differences between what is considered active treatment of a condition versus routine care during the healing and recovery phase of a condition in the home health setting. The assignment of the seventh character should be based on clinical information from the physician and depends on whether the individual is receiving active treatment for the condition in which the code describes, or if the individual is receiving ongoing care for that condition during the healing and recovery stage. In determining which diagnosis codes would be appropriate for an HHA to indicate that the care is for an initial encounter, CMS developed and shared a draft list of codes with the cooperating parties. Agreement was reached between CMS and the cooperating parties and a revised translation list effective January 1, 2016 will be posted on the CMS Web site. Also effective, January 1, 2016, the Home Health Prospective Payment System Grouper logic will be revised to award points for certain initial encounter codes based upon the revised ICD-10-CM coding guidelines for M0090 dates on or after October 1, 2015.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that the standard prospective payment amounts for CY 2015 be increased by a factor equal to the applicable HH market basket update for those HHAs that submit quality data as required by the Secretary. The HH market basket was rebased and revised in CY 2013. A detailed description of how we derive the HHA market basket is available in the CY 2013 HH PPS final rule (77 FR 67080- 67090). The HH market basket percentage increase for CY 2016 is based on IHS Global Insight Inc.'s (IGI) third quarter forecast with historical data through the second quarter of 2015. The HH market basket percentage increase for CY 2016 is 2.3 percent.
Section 3401(e) of the Affordable Care Act, adding new section 1895(b)(3)(B)(vi) to the Act, requires that the market basket percentage under the HHA prospective payment system as described in section 1895(b)(3)(B) of the Act be annually adjusted by changes in economy-wide productivity for CY 2015 and each subsequent calendar year. The statute defines the productivity adjustment, described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act, to be equal to the 10-year moving average of change in annual economy-wide private nonfarm business multifactor productivity (MFP) (as projected by the Secretary for the 10-year period ending with the applicable fiscal year, calendar year, cost reporting period, or other annual period) (the “MFP adjustment”). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the agency that publishes the official measure of private nonfarm business MFP. Please see
Multifactor productivity is derived by subtracting the contribution of labor and capital input growth from output growth. The projections of the components of MFP are currently produced by IGI, a nationally recognized economic forecasting firm with which CMS contracts to forecast the components of the market basket and MFP. As described in the CY 2015 HH PPS proposed rule (79 FR 38384 through 38386), in order to generate a forecast of MFP, IGI replicated the MFP measure calculated by the BLS using a series of proxy variables derived from IGI's U.S. macroeconomic models. In the CY 2015 HH PPS proposed rule, we identified each of the major MFP component series employed by the BLS to measure MFP as well as provided the corresponding concepts determined to be the best available proxies for the BLS series.
Beginning with the CY 2016 rulemaking cycle, the MFP adjustment is calculated using a revised series developed by IGI to proxy the aggregate capital inputs. Specifically, IGI has replaced the Real Effective Capital Stock used for Full Employment GDP with a forecast of BLS aggregate capital inputs recently developed by IGI using a regression model. This series provides a better fit to the BLS capital inputs as measured by the differences between the actual BLS capital input growth rates and the estimated model growth rates over the historical time period. Therefore, we are using IGI's most recent forecast of the BLS capital inputs series in the MFP calculations beginning with the CY 2016 rulemaking cycle. A complete description of the MFP projection methodology is available on our Web site at
Using IGI's third quarter 2015 forecast, the MFP adjustment for CY 2016 (the 10-year moving average of MFP for the period ending CY 2016) is 0.4 percent. The CY 2016 HH market basket percentage of 2.3 percent will be reduced by the MFP adjustment of 0.4 percent. The resulting HH payment update percentage is equal to 1.9 percent, or 2.3 percent less 0.4 percentage point.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that the HH update be decreased by 2 percentage points for those HHAs that do not submit quality data as required by the Secretary. For HHAs that do not submit the required quality data for CY 2016, the HH payment update will be -0.1 percent (1.9 percent minus 2 percentage points).
Sections 1895(b)(4)(A)(ii) and (b)(4)(C) of the Act require the Secretary to provide appropriate adjustments to the proportion of the payment amount under the HH PPS that account for area wage differences, using adjustment factors that reflect the relative level of wages and wage-related costs applicable to the furnishing of HH services. Since the inception of the HH PPS, we have used inpatient hospital wage data in developing a wage index to be applied to HH payments.
We will apply the appropriate wage index value to the labor portion of the HH PPS rates based on the site of service for the beneficiary (defined by section 1861(m) of the Act as the beneficiary's place of residence).
We will continue to use the same methodology discussed in the CY 2007 HH PPS final rule (71 FR 65884) to address those geographic areas in which there are no inpatient hospitals, and thus, no hospital wage data on which to base the calculation of the CY 2015 HH PPS wage index. For rural areas that do
On February 28, 2013, OMB issued Bulletin No. 13-01, announcing revisions to the delineations of MSAs, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and CBSAs, and guidance on uses of the delineation of these areas. This bulletin is available online at
In the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66085 through 66087), we finalized changes to the HH PPS wage index based on the newest OMB delineations, as described in OMB Bulletin No. 13-01, including a 1-year transition with a blended wage index for CY 2015. Because the 1-year transition period expires at the end of CY 2015, the final HH PPS wage index for CY 2016 will be fully based on the revised OMB delineations adopted in CY 2015. The final CY 2016 wage index is available on the CMS Web site at
a. Background
The Medicare HH PPS has been in effect since October 1, 2000. As set forth in the July 3, 2000 final rule (65 FR 41128), the base unit of payment under the Medicare HH PPS is a national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate. As set forth in 42 CFR 484.220, we adjust the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate by a case-mix relative weight and a wage index value based on the site of service for the beneficiary.
To provide appropriate adjustments to the proportion of the payment amount under the HH PPS to account for area wage differences, we apply the appropriate wage index value to the labor portion of the HH PPS rates. The labor-related share of the case-mix adjusted 60-day episode rate is 78.535 percent and the non-labor-related share is 21.465 percent as set out in the CY 2013 HH PPS final rule (77 FR 67068). The CY 2016 HH PPS rates will use the same case-mix methodology as set forth in the CY 2008 HH PPS final rule with comment period (72 FR 49762) and will be adjusted as described in section III.C. of this rule. The following are the steps we take to compute the case-mix and wage-adjusted 60-day episode rate:
1. Multiply the national 60-day episode rate by the patient's applicable case-mix weight.
2. Divide the case-mix adjusted amount into a labor (78.535 percent) and a non-labor portion (21.465 percent).
3. Multiply the labor portion by the applicable wage index based on the site of service of the beneficiary.
4. Add the wage-adjusted portion to the non-labor portion, yielding the case-mix and wage adjusted 60-day episode rate, subject to any additional applicable adjustments.
In accordance with section 1895(b)(3)(B) of the Act, this document constitutes the annual update of the HH PPS rates. Section 484.225 sets forth the specific annual percentage update methodology. In accordance with § 484.225(i), for a HHA that does not submit HH quality data, as specified by the Secretary, the unadjusted national prospective 60-day episode rate is equal to the rate for the previous calendar year increased by the applicable HH market basket index amount minus two percentage points. Any reduction of the percentage change will apply only to the calendar year involved and would not be considered in computing the prospective payment amount for a subsequent calendar year.
Medicare pays the national, standardized 60-day case-mix and wage-adjusted episode payment on a split percentage payment approach. The split percentage payment approach includes an initial percentage payment and a final percentage payment as set forth in § 484.205(b)(1) and (b)(2). We may base the initial percentage payment on the submission of a request for anticipated payment (RAP) and the final percentage payment on the submission of the claim for the episode, as discussed in § 409.43. The claim for the episode that the HHA submits for the final percentage payment determines the total payment amount for the episode and whether we make an applicable adjustment to the 60-day case-mix and wage-adjusted episode payment. The end date of the 60-day episode as reported on the claim determines which calendar year rates Medicare would use to pay the claim.
We may also adjust the 60-day case-mix and wage-adjusted episode payment based on the information submitted on the claim to reflect the following:
• A low-utilization payment adjustment (LUPA) is provided on a per-visit basis as set forth in § 484.205(c) and § 484.230.
• A partial episode payment (PEP) adjustment as set forth in § 484.205(d) and § 484.235.
• An outlier payment as set forth in § 484.205(e) and § 484.240.
Section 1895(3)(A)(i) of the Act required that the 60-day episode base rate and other applicable amounts be standardized in a manner that eliminates the effects of variations in relative case mix and area wage adjustments among different home health agencies in a budget neutral manner. To determine the CY 2016 national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate, we will apply a wage index standardization factor, a case-mix budget neutrality factor described in section III.B.1, a nominal case-mix growth adjustment described in section III.B.2, the rebasing adjustment described in section II.C, and the HH payment update as discussed in section III.C.1 of this final rule.
To calculate the wage index standardization factor, henceforth referred to as the wage index budget neutrality factor, we simulated total payments for non-LUPA episodes using the 2016 wage index and compared it to our simulation of total payments for non-LUPA episodes using the 2015 wage index. By dividing the total payments for non-LUPA episodes using the 2016 wage index by the total payments for non-LUPA episodes using the 2015 wage index, we obtain a wage index budget neutrality factor of 1.0011. We will apply the wage index budget neutrality factor of 1.0011 to the CY
As discussed in section III.B.1 of this final rule, to ensure the changes to the case-mix weights are implemented in a budget neutral manner, we will apply a case-mix weight budget neutrality factor to the CY 2016 national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate. The case-mix weight budget neutrality factor is calculated as the ratio of total payments when CY 2016 case-mix weights are applied to CY 2014 utilization (claims) data to total payments when CY 2015 case-mix weights are applied to CY 2014 utilization data. The case-mix budget neutrality factor for CY 2016 will be 1.0187 as described in section III.B.1 of this final rule.
Next, as discussed in section III.B.2 of this final rule, we will apply a reduction of 0.97 percent to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate in CY 2016 to account for nominal case-mix growth between CY 2012 and CY 2014. Then, we will apply the -$80.95 rebasing adjustment finalized in the CY 2014 HH PPS final rule (78 FR 72256) and discussed in section II.C. Lastly, we will update the payment rates by the CY 2016 HH payment update of 1.9 percent (MFP-adjusted home health market basket update) as described in section III.C.1 of this final rule. The CY 2016 national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate is calculated in Table 7.
The CY 2016 national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate for an HHA that does not submit the required quality data is updated by the CY 2016 HH payment update (1.9 percent) minus 2 percentage points and is shown in Table 8.
The national per-visit rates are used to pay LUPAs (episodes with four or fewer visits) and are also used to compute imputed costs in outlier calculations. The per-visit rates are paid by type of visit or HH discipline. The six HH disciplines are as follows:
• Home health aide (HH aide);
• Medical Social Services (MSS);
• Occupational therapy (OT);
• Physical therapy (PT);
• Skilled nursing (SN); and
• Speech-language pathology (SLP).
To calculate the CY 2016 national per-visit rates, we start with the CY 2015 national per-visit rates. We then apply a wage index budget neutrality factor to ensure budget neutrality for LUPA per-visit payments and increase each of the six per-visit rates by the maximum rebasing adjustments described in section II.C. of this rule. We calculate the wage index budget neutrality factor by simulating total payments for LUPA episodes using the 2016 wage index and comparing it to simulated total payments for LUPA episodes using the 2015 wage index. By dividing the total payments for LUPA episodes using the 2016 wage index by the total payments for LUPA episodes using the 2015 wage index, we obtain a wage index budget neutrality factor of 1.0010. We will apply the wage index budget neutrality factor of 1.0010 to the CY 2016 national per-visit rates.
The LUPA per-visit rates are not calculated using case-mix weights. Therefore, there is no case-mix weight budget neutrality factor needed to ensure budget neutrality for LUPA payments. Then, we apply the rebasing adjustments finalized in the CY 2014 HH PPS final rule (78 FR 72280) to the per-visit rates for each discipline. Finally, the per-visit rates are updated by the CY 2016 HH payment update of 1.9 percent. The national per-visit rates are adjusted by the wage index based on the site of service of the beneficiary. The per-visit payments for LUPAs are separate from the LUPA add-on payment amount, which is paid for episodes that occur as the only episode or initial episode in a sequence of adjacent episodes. The CY 2016 national per-visit rates are shown in Tables 9 and 10.
The CY 2016 per-visit payment rates for HHAs that do not submit the required quality data are updated by the CY 2016 HH payment update of 1.9 percent minus 2 percentage points (which is equal to −0.1 percent) and is shown in Table 10.
LUPA episodes that occur as the only episode or as an initial episode in a sequence of adjacent episodes are adjusted by applying an additional amount to the LUPA payment before adjusting for area wage differences. In the CY 2014 HH PPS final rule, we changed the methodology for calculating the LUPA add-on amount by finalizing the use of three LUPA add-on factors: 1.8451 for SN; 1.6700 for PT; and 1.6266 for SLP (78 FR 72306). We multiply the per-visit payment amount for the first SN, PT, or SLP visit in LUPA episodes that occur as the only episode or an initial episode in a sequence of adjacent episodes by the appropriate factor to determine the LUPA add-on payment amount. For example, for LUPA episodes that occur as the only episode or an initial episode in a sequence of adjacent episodes, if the first skilled visit is SN, the payment for that visit would be $248.02 (1.8451 multiplied by $134.42), subject to area wage adjustment.
Payments for NRS are computed by multiplying the relative weight for a particular severity level by the NRS conversion factor. To determine the CY 2016 NRS conversion factor, we start with the 2015 NRS conversion factor ($53.23) and apply the −2.82 percent rebasing adjustment described in section II.C. of this rule (1 − 0.0282 = 0.9718). We then update the conversion factor by the CY 2016 HH payment update of 1.9 percent. We do not apply a standardization factor as the NRS payment amount calculated from the conversion factor is not wage or case-mix adjusted when the final claim payment amount is computed. The NRS conversion factor for CY 2016 is shown in Table 11.
Using the CY 2016 NRS conversion factor, the payment amounts for the six severity levels are shown in Table 12.
For HHAs that do not submit the required quality data, we again begin with the CY 2015 NRS conversion factor ($53.23) and apply the −2.82 percent rebasing adjustment as discussed in section II.C of this final rule (1 − 0.0282 = 0.9718). We then update the NRS conversion factor by the CY 2016 HH payment update of 1.9 percent minus 2 percentage points. The CY 2016 NRS conversion factor for HHAs that do not submit quality data is shown in Table 13.
The payment amounts for the various severity levels based on the updated conversion factor for HHAs that do not submit quality data are calculated in Table 14.
Section 421(a) of the MMA requires, for HH services furnished in a rural area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Act), for episodes or visits ending on or after April 1, 2010, and before January 1, 2018, that the Secretary increase the payment amount that otherwise would have been made under section 1895 of the Act for the services by 3 percent. Section 421 of the MMA waives budget neutrality related to this provision, as the statute specifically states that the Secretary shall not reduce the standard prospective payment amount (or amounts) under section 1895 of the Act applicable to HH services furnished during a period to offset the increase in payments resulting in the application of this section of the statute.
For CY 2016, home health payment rates for services provided to beneficiaries in areas that are defined as rural under the OMB delineations will be increased by 3 percent as mandated by section 421(a) of the MMA. The 3 percent rural add-on is applied to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate, national per visit rates, and NRS conversion factor when HH services are provided in rural (non-CBSA) areas. Refer to Tables 15 through 18 for these payment rates.
The following is a summary of comments we received regarding the CY 2016 home health rate update.
At this time, we do not have evidence that a population density adjustment is appropriate. While rural HHAs cite the added cost of long distance travel to provide care for their patients, urban HHAs cite added costs associated with needed security measures and traffic congestion.
In addition, we do not believe that using hospital reclassification data would be appropriate as these data are specific to the requesting hospitals and it may or may not apply to a given HHA in a given instance. With regard to implementing a rural floor, we do not believe it would be prudent at this time to adopt such a policy. MedPAC has recommended eliminating the rural floor policy from the calculation of the IPPS wage index (
We continue to believe that using the pre-floor, pre-reclassified hospital wage index as the wage adjustment to the labor portion of the HH PPS rates is appropriate and reasonable.
Developing a wage index that utilizes data specific to HHAs would require us to engage resources in an audit process. In order to establish a home health specific wage index, we would need to collect data that is specific to home health services. Because of the volatility of the home health wage data and the significant amount of resources that would be required to improve the quality of those data, we do not expect to propose a home health specific wage index until we can demonstrate that a home health specific wage index would be more reflective of the wages and salaries paid in a specific area, be based upon stable data sources, significantly improve our ability to determine payment for HHAs, and that we can justify the resources required to collect the data, as well as the increased burden on providers. We believe that in the absence of home health specific wage data, using the pre-floor, pre-reclassified hospital wage data is appropriate and reasonable for the HH PPS.
In the July 10, 2015 Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2016 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements; Proposed Rules (80 FR 39863 through 39864), we described the background and current method for determining outlier payments under the HH PPS. In that rule, we did not propose any changes to the current home health outlier payment policy for CY 2016.
For this final rule, simulating payments using CY 2014 claims data (as of June 30, 2015) and the CY 2016 payment rates, without the rebasing and nominal case-mix growth adjustments as described in section III.C.3 of this rule, we estimate that outlier payments in CY 2016 would comprise 2.13 percent of total payments. Based on simulations using CY 2014 claims data and the CY 2016 payments rates, including the rebasing and nominal case-mix growth adjustments as described in section III.C.3 of this rule, we estimate that outlier payments would comprise approximately 2.30 percent of total HH PPS payments, a percent change of almost 8 percent. This increase is attributable to the increase in the national per-visit amounts through the rebasing adjustments and the decrease in the national, standardized 60-day episode payment amount as a result of the rebasing and nominal case-mix growth adjustments. Given the same rebasing adjustments and case-mix growth reduction would also occur for 2017, and hence a similar anticipated increase in the outlier payments, we estimate that for CY 2017 outlier payments as a percent of total HH PPS payments would be approximately 2.5 percent.
We did not propose a change to the FDL ratio or loss-sharing ratio for CY
The following is a summary of comments we received regarding payments for high-cost outliers.
In the CY 2016 HH PPS proposed rule (80 FR 39840), we included an informational summary of the Report to Congress on the home health study required by section 3131(d) of the Affordable Care Act and we provided an update on subsequent research and analysis completed to date. We will continue to provide the home health industry with periodic updates on the progress of our subsequent research, aimed at addressing the findings from the section 3131(d) of the Affordable Care Act home health study, in future rulemaking and/or announcements on the HHA Center Web page at:
We proposed to make several technical corrections in part 484 to better align the payment requirements with recent statutory and regulatory changes for home health services. We proposed to make changes to § 484. 205(e) to state that estimated total outlier payments for a given calendar year are limited to no more than 2.5 percent of total outlays under the HHA PPS, as required by section 1895(b)(5)(A) of the Act as amended by section 3131(b)(2)(B) of the Affordable Care Act, rather than 5 percent of total outlays. Similarly, we also proposed to specify in § 484.240(e) that the fixed dollar loss and the loss sharing amounts are chosen so that the estimated total outlier payment is no more than 2.5 percent of total payments under the HH PPS. We also proposed to describe in § 484.240(f) that the estimated total amount of outlier payments to an HHA in a given year may not exceed 10 percent of the estimated total payments to the specific agency under the HH PPS in a given year. This update aligns the regulations text at § 484.240(f) with the statutory requirement. Finally, we proposed a minor editorial change in § 484.240(b) to specify that the outlier threshold for each case-mix group is the episode payment amount for that group,
In addition to the proposed changes to the regulations text pertaining to outlier payments under the HH PPS, we also proposed to amend § 409.43(e)(iii) and to add language to § 484.205(d) to clarify the frequency of review of the plan of care and the provision of Partial Episode Payments (PEP) under the HH PPS as a result of a regulations text change in § 424.22(b) that was finalized in the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66032). Specifically, we proposed to change the definition of an intervening event to include transfers and instances where a patient is discharged and return to home health during a 60-day episode, rather than a discharge and return to the same HHA during a 60-day episode. In § 484.220, we proposed to update the regulations text to reflect the downward adjustments to the 60-day episode payment rate due to changes in the coding or classification of different units of service that do not reflect real changes in case-mix (nominal case-mix growth) applied to calendar years 2012 and 2013, which were finalized in the CY 2012 HH PPS final rule (76 FR 68532) as well as updating the CY 2011 adjustment to 3.79 percent as finalized in the CY 2011 HH PPS final rule (75 FR 70461). In § 484.225 we proposed to eliminate references to outdated market basket index factors by removing paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g). In § 484.230 we proposed to delete the last sentence as a result of a change from a separate LUPA add-on amount to a LUPA add-on factor finalized in the CY 2014 HH PPS final rule (78 FR 72256). Finally, we proposed deleting and reserving § 484.245 as we believe that this language is no longer applicable under the HH PPS, as it was meant to
Lastly, we proposed to make one technical correction in § 424.22 to re-designate paragraph (a)(1)(v)(B)(
We invited comments on these technical corrections and associated changes in the regulations in parts 409, 424, and 484. However, we did not receive any comments regarding the technical regulations text changes.
In the CY 2015 Home Health Prospective Payment System (HH PPS) final rule titled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2015 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements; and Survey and Enforcement Requirements for Home Health Agencies (79 FR 66032-66118), we indicated that we were considering the development of a home health value-based purchasing (HHVBP) model. We sought comments on a future HHVBP model, including elements of the model; size of the payment incentives and percentage of payments that would need to be placed at risk in order to spur home health agencies (HHAs) to make the necessary investments to improve the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries; the timing of the payment adjustments; and, how performance payments should be distributed. We also sought comments on the best approach for selecting states for participation in this model. We noted that if the decision was made to move forward with the implementation of a HHVBP model in CY 2016, we would solicit additional comments on a more detailed model proposal to be included in future rulemaking.
In the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule,
The basis for developing the proposed value-based purchasing (VBP) model, as described in the proposed regulations at § 484.300
Second, section 3006(b) of the Affordable Care Act directed the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to develop a plan to implement a VBP program for payments under the Medicare Program for HHAs and the Secretary issued an associated Report to Congress in March of 2012 (2012 Report).
Third, section 402(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Amendments of 1967 (as amended) (42 U.S.C. 1395b-1(a)(1)(A)), provided authority for us to conduct the Home Health Pay-for-Performance (HHPFP) Demonstration that ran from 2008 to 2010. The results of that demonstration found modest quality improvement in certain measures after comparing the quality of care furnished by demonstration participants to the quality of care furnished by the control group. One important lesson learned from the HHPFP Demonstration was the need to link the HHA's quality improvement efforts and the incentives. HHAs in three of the four regions generated enough savings to have incentive payments in the first year of the demonstration, but the size of payments were unknown until after the conclusion of the demonstration. Also, the time lag between quality performance and payment incentives was too long to provide a sufficient motivation for HHAs to take necessary steps to improve quality. The results of the demonstration, published in a comprehensive evaluation report
Furthermore, the President's FY 2015 and 2016 Budgets proposed that VBP should be extended to additional providers including skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, ambulatory surgical centers, and hospital outpatient departments. The FY 2015 Budget called for at least 2-percent of payments to be tied to quality and efficiency of care on a budget neutral
The Secretary has also set two overall delivery system reform goals for CMS. First, we seek to tie 30-percent of traditional, or fee-for-service, Medicare payments to quality or value-based payments through alternative payment models by the end of 2016, and to tie 50-percent of payments to these models by the end of 2018. Second, we seek to tie 85-percent of all traditional Medicare payments to quality or value by 2016 and 90-percent by 2018.
Finally, we have already successfully implemented the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program, under which value-based incentive payments are made in a fiscal year to hospitals that meet performance standards established for a performance period with respect to measures for that fiscal year. The percentage of a participating hospital's base-operating DRG payment amount for FY 2016 discharges that is at risk, based on the hospital's performance under the program for that fiscal year, is 1.75 percent. That percentage will increase to 2.0 by FY 2017. We proposed and are finalizing in this rule an HHVBP Model that builds on the lessons learned and guidance from the HVBP program and other applicable demonstrations as discussed above, as well as from the evaluation report discussed earlier.
As we stated in the CY 2016 HH PPS proposed rule, the HHVBP Model presents an opportunity to improve the quality of care furnished to Medicare beneficiaries and study what incentives are sufficiently significant to encourage HHAs to provide high quality care. The HHVBP Model will offer both a greater potential reward for high performing HHAs as well as a greater potential downside risk for low performing HHAs. We proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, that the model will begin on January 1, 2016, and include an array of measures that would capture the multiple dimensions of care that HHAs furnish.
The HHVBP Model, as finalized, will be tested by CMS's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) under section 1115A of the Act. Under section 1115A(d)(1) of the Act, the Secretary may waive such requirements of Titles XI and XVIII and of sections 1902(a)(1), 1902(a)(13), and 1903(m)(2)(A)(iii) as may be necessary solely for purposes of carrying out section 1115A with respect to testing models described in section 1115A(b). The Secretary is not issuing any waivers of the fraud and abuse provisions in sections 1128A, 1128B, and 1877 of the SSA or any other Medicare or Medicaid fraud and abuse laws for this model. Thus, notwithstanding any other provisions of this rule, all providers participating in the HHVBP Model must comply with all applicable fraud and abuse laws and regulations. Therefore, to clarify the scope of the Secretary's authority we have finalized § 484.300 confirming authority to establish Part F under sections 1102, 1115A, and 1871 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1315a), which authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations to operate the Medicare program and test innovative payment and service delivery models to improve coordination, quality, and efficiency of health care services furnished under Title XVIII.
As we proposed, we are using section 1115A(d)(1) waiver authority to apply a reduction or increase of up to 8-percent to current Medicare payments to competing HHAs delivering care to beneficiaries in selected states, depending on the HHA's performance on specified quality measures relative to its peers. Specifically, the HHVBP Model will utilize the waiver authority to adjust Medicare payment rates under section 1895(b) of the Act.
We are finalizing in this rule, as we proposed, that the defined population includes all Medicare beneficiaries provided care by any Medicare-certified HHA delivering care within the selected states. Medicare-certified HHAs that are delivering care within selected states are considered `Competing Home Health Agencies' within the scope of this HHVBP Model. If care is delivered outside of selected states, or within a non-selected state that does not have a reciprocal agreement with a selected state, payments for those beneficiaries are not considered within the scope of the model because we are basing participation in the model on state-specific CMS Certification Numbers (CCNs). Payment adjustments for each year of the model will be calculated based on a comparison of how well each competing HHA performed during the performance period for that year (proposed, and finalized below, to be one year in length, starting in CY 2016) with its performance on the same measures in 2015 (proposed, and finalized below, to be the baseline data year).
As we proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, the first performance year will be CY 2016, the second will be CY 2017, the third will be CY 2018, the fourth will be 2019, and the fifth will be CY 2020. Greater details on performance periods are outlined in Section D—Performance Assessment and Payment Periods. This model will test whether being subject to significant payment adjustments to the Medicare payment amounts that would otherwise be made to competing Medicare-certified HHAs would result in statistically-significant improvements in the quality of care being delivered to this specific population of Medicare beneficiaries.
We proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, to identify Medicare-certified HHAs to compete in this model using state borders as boundaries. We do so under the authority granted in section 1115A(a)(5) of the Act to elect to limit testing of a model to certain geographic areas. This decision is influenced by the 2012 Report to Congress mandated under section 3006(b) of the Affordable Care Act. This Report stated that HHAs which participated in previous value-based purchasing demonstrations “uniformly believed that all Medicare-certified HHAs should be required to participate in future VBP programs so all agencies experience the potential burdens and benefits of the program” and some HHAs expressed concern that absent mandatory participation, “low-performing agencies in areas with
Section 1115A(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that the Secretary select models to be tested where the Secretary determines that there is evidence that the model addresses a defined population for which there are deficits in care leading to poor clinical outcomes or potentially avoidable expenditures. The HHVBP Model was developed to improve care for Medicare patients receiving care from HHAs based on evidence in the March 2014 MedPAC Report to Congress citing quality and cost concerns in the home health sector. According to MedPAC, “about 29-percent of post-hospital home health stays result in readmission, and there is tremendous variation in performance among providers within and across geographic regions.”
We proposed to include in § 484.305 definitions for “applicable percent”, “applicable measure”, “benchmark”, “home health prospective payment system”, “larger-volume cohort”, “linear exchange function”, “Medicare-certified home health agency”, “New Measures”, “payment adjustment”, “performance period”, “smaller-volume cohort”, “selected states”, “starter set”, “Total Performance Score”, and “value-based purchasing” as they pertain to this subpart. Where we received comments on the proposed definitions or the substantive provisions of the model connected to the proposed definitions, we respond to comments in the relevant sections below. We are finalizing all the definitions as proposed in § 484.305 except for two: We are revising “applicable percent” so the final definition reflects the revised percentages as 3-percent for CY 2018, 5-percent for CY 2019, 6-percent for 2020; 7-percent for CY 2021 and 8-percent for CY 2022, as discussed in section G and we are revising “Medicare-certified home health agency” as “Competing home health agency” for clarity, since all HHAs with CCNs are, by definition, Medicare-certified, and only those HHAs in selected states are competing in the model. As we proposed and are finalizing in this rule, the HHVBP Model will encompass 5 performance years and be implemented beginning January 1, 2016 and conclude on December 31, 2022.
Payment and service delivery models are developed by CMMI in accordance with the requirements of section 1115A of the Act. During the development of new models, CMMI builds on the ideas received from internal and external stakeholders and consults with clinical and analytical experts.
We are finalizing our proposal to implement a HHVBP Model that has an overall purpose of improving the quality and efficient delivery of home health care services to the Medicare population. The specific goals of the model are to:
1. Incentivize HHAs to provide better quality care with greater efficiency;
2. Study new potential quality and efficiency measures for appropriateness in the home health setting; and,
3. Enhance current public reporting processes.
We proposed that the HHVBP Model would adjust Medicare HHA payments over the course of the model by up to 8-percent depending on the applicable performance year and the degree of quality performance demonstrated by each competing HHA. As discussed in greater detail in section G, we are finalizing this proposal with modification. Under our final policy, the model will reduce the HH PPS final claim payment amount to an HHA for each episode in a calendar year by an amount up to the applicable percentage revised and defined in § 484.305. The timeline of payment adjustments as they apply to each performance year is described in greater detail in the section D2 entitled “Payment Adjustment Timeline.”
As we proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, the model will apply to all Medicare-certified HHAs in each of the selected states, which means that all HHAs in the selected states will be required to compete. We codify this policy at 42 CFR 484.310. Furthermore, a competing HHA will only be measured on performance for care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries within selected states (with rare exceptions given for care delivered when a reciprocal agreement exists between states). The distribution of payment adjustments will be based on quality performance, as measured by both achievement and improvement, across a set of quality measures rigorously constructed to minimize burden as much as possible and improve care. Competing HHAs that demonstrate they can deliver higher quality of care in comparison to their peers (as defined by the volume of services delivered within the selected state), or their own past performance, could have their payment for each episode of care adjusted higher than the amount that otherwise would be paid under section 1895 of the Act. Competing HHAs that do not perform as well as other competing HHAs of the same size in the same state might have their payments reduced and those competing HHAs that perform similarly to others of similar size in the same state might have no payment adjustment made. This operational concept is similar in practice to what is used in the HVBP program.
We expect that the risk of having payments adjusted in this manner will provide an incentive among all competing HHAs delivering care within the boundaries of selected states to provide significantly better quality through improved planning, coordination, and management of care. The degree of the payment adjustment will be dependent on the level of quality achieved or improved from the baseline year, with the highest upward performance adjustments going to competing HHAs with the highest overall level of performance based on either achievement or improvement in quality. The size of a competing HHA's payment adjustment for each year under the model will be dependent upon that HHA's performance with respect to that calendar year relative to other competing HHAs of similar size in the same state and relative to its own performance during the baseline year.
We proposed that states would be selected randomly from nine regional groupings for model participation. As discussed further in section IV.C. of this rule, we are finalizing this proposal. A competing HHA is only measured on performance for care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries within boundaries of selected states and only payments for HHA services provided to Medicare beneficiaries within boundaries of selected states will be subject to adjustment under this model unless a reciprocal agreement is in place. Requiring all Medicare-certified HHAs within the boundaries of selected
We proposed to adopt a methodology that uses state borders as boundaries for demarcating which Medicare-certified HHAs will be required to compete in the model and proposed to select nine states from nine geographically-defined groupings of five or six states. Groupings were also defined so that the successful implementation of the model would produce robust and generalizable results, as discussed later in this section. We are finalizing this approach here.
We took into account five key factors when deciding to propose selection at the state-level for this model. First, if we required some, but not all, Medicare-certified HHAs that deliver care within the boundaries of a selected state to participate in the model, we believe the HHA market for the state could be disrupted because HHAs in the model would be competing against HHAs that are not included in the model (herein referenced `non-competing HHAs'). Second, we wanted to ensure that the distribution of payment adjustments based on performance under the model could be extrapolated to the entire country. Statistically, the larger the sample to which payment adjustments are applied, the smaller the variance of the sampling distribution and the greater the likelihood that the distribution accurately predicts what would transpire if the methodology were applied to the full population of HHAs. Third, we considered the need to align with other HHA quality program initiatives including HHC. The HHC Web site presently provides the public and HHAs a state- and national-level comparison of quality. We expect that aligning performance with the HHVBP benchmark and the achievement score will support how measures are currently being reported on HHC. Fourth, there is a need to align with CMS regulations which require that each HHA have a unique CMS Certification Number (CCN) for each state in which the HHA provides service. Fifth, we wanted to ensure sufficient sample size and the ability to meet the rigorous evaluation requirements for CMMI models. These five factors are important for the successful implementation and evaluation of this model.
We expect that when there is a risk for a downward payment adjustment based on quality performance measures, the use of a self-contained, mandatory cohort of HHA participants will create a stronger incentive to deliver greater quality among competing HHAs. Specifically, it is possible the market would become distorted if non-model HHAs are delivering care within the same market as competing HHAs because competition, on the whole, becomes unfair when payment is predicated on quality for one group and volume for the other group. In addition, we expect that evaluation efforts might be negatively impacted because some HHAs would be competing on quality and others on volume, within the same market.
We proposed the use of state boundaries after careful consideration of several alternative selection approaches, including randomly selecting HHAs from all HHAs across the country, and requiring participation from smaller geographic regions including the county; the Combined Statistical Area (CSA); the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA); Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) rural provider level; and the Hospital Referral Region (HRR) level.
A methodology using a national sample of HHAs that are randomly selected from all HHAs across the country could be designed to include enough HHAs to ensure robust payment adjustment distribution and a sufficient sample size for the evaluation; however, this approach may present significant limitations when compared with the state boundaries selection methodology we proposed in this model. Of primary concern with randomly selecting at the provider-level across the nation is the issue with market distortions created by having competing HHAs operating in the same market as non-model HHAs.
Using smaller geographic areas than states, such as counties, CSAs, CBSAs, rural, and HRRs, could also present challenges for this model. These smaller geographic areas were considered as alternate selection options; however, their use could result in too small of a sample size of potential competing HHAs. As a result, we expect the distribution of payment adjustments could become highly divergent among fewer HHA competitors. In addition, the ability to evaluate the model could become more complex and may be less generalizable to the full population of Medicare-certified HHAs and the beneficiaries they serve across the nation. Further, the use of smaller geographic areas than states could increase the proportion of Medicare-certified HHAs that could fall into groupings with too few agencies to generate a stable distribution of payment adjustments. Thus, if we were to define geographic areas based on CSAs, CBSAs, counties, or HRRs, we would need to develop an approach for consolidating smaller regions into larger regions.
Home health care is a unique type of health care service when compared to other Medicare provider types. In general, the HHA's care delivery setting is in the beneficiaries' homes as opposed to other provider types that traditionally deliver care at a brick and mortar institution within beneficiaries' respective communities. As a result, the HHVBP Model needs to be designed to account for the unique way that HHA care is provided in order for results to be generalizable to the population. HHAs are limited to providing care to beneficiaries in the state that they have a CCN however; HHAs are not restricted from providing service in a county, CSA, CBSA or HRR that they are not located in (as long as the other county/CBSA/HRR is in the same state in which the HHA is certified). As a result, using smaller geographic areas (than state boundaries) could result in similar market distortion and evaluation confounders as selecting providers from a randomized national sampling. The reason is that HHAs in adjacent counties/CSAs/CBSAs/HRRs may not be in the model but, would be directly competing for services in the same markets or geographic regions. Competing HHAs delivering care in the
In addition, home health quality data currently displayed on HHC allows users to compare HHA services furnished within a single state. Selecting HHAs using other geographic regions that are smaller and/or cross state lines could require the model to deviate from the established process for reporting quality. For these reasons, we stated in the proposed rule that we believe a selection methodology based on the use of Medicare-certified HHAs delivering care within state boundaries is the most appropriate for the successful implementation and evaluation of this model. In the proposed rule, we requested comments on this proposed state selection methodology as well as potential alternatives. We summarize and respond to comments received at the end of this section (section IV.C.). As we discuss below, we are finalizing the state selection model as proposed.
We proposed the state selections listed in proposed § 484.310 based on the described proposed randomized selection methodology. We proposed to group states by each state's geographic proximity to one another accounting for key evaluation characteristics (that is, proportionality of service utilization, proportionality of organizations with similar tax-exempt status and HHA size, and proportionality of beneficiaries that are dually-eligible for Medicare and Medicaid).
Based on an analysis of OASIS quality data and Medicare claims data, we stated in the proposed rule that we believe the use of nine geographic groupings would account for the diversity of beneficiary demographics, rural and urban status, cost and quality variations, among other criteria. To provide for comparable and equitable selection probabilities, these separate geographic groupings each include a comparable number of states. Under our proposed methodology, groupings were based on states' geographic proximity to one another, having a comparable number of states if randomized for an equal opportunity of selection, and similarities in key characteristics that will be considered in the evaluation study because the attributes represent different types of HHAs, regulatory oversight, and types of beneficiaries served. This is necessary for the evaluation study to remain objective and unbiased and so that the results of this study best represent the entire population of Medicare-certified HHAs across the nation.
Several of the key characteristics we used for grouping state boundaries into clusters for selection into the model are also used in the impact analysis of our annual HHA payment updates, a fact that reinforces their relevance for evaluation. The additional proposed standards for grouping (level of utilization and socioeconomic status of patients) are also important to consider when evaluating the program, because of their current policy relevance. Large variations in the level of utilization of the home health benefit has received attention from policymakers concerned with achieving high-value health care and curbing fraud and abuse.
We explained in the proposed rule that under this methodology, in order to ensure that the Medicare-certified HHAs that would be required to participate in the model are not all in one region of the country, the states in each grouping are adjacent to each other whenever possible while creating logical groupings of states based on common characteristics as described above. Specifically, analysis based on quality data and claims data found that HHAs in these neighboring states tend to hold certain characteristics in common. These include having similar patterns of utilization, proportionality of non-profit agencies, and types of beneficiaries served (for example, severity and number, type of co-morbidities, and socio-economic status). Therefore, the proposed groupings of states were delineated according to states' geographic proximity to one another and common characteristics as a means of permitting greater comparability. In addition, each of the groupings retains similar types of characteristics when compared to any other type of grouping of states.
Under the proposed randomized selection methodology, each geographic region, or grouping, has a similar number of states. As a result, all states had a 16.7-percent to 20-percent chance of being selected under our proposed methodology, and Medicare-certified HHAs had a similar likelihood of being required to compete in the model by using this sampling design. We asserted in the proposed rule that this sampling design would ensure that no single entity is singled out for selection, since all states and Medicare-certified HHAs would have approximately the same chance of being selected. In addition, this sampling approach would mitigate the opportunity for HHAs to self-select into the model and thereby bias any results of the test.
Without sacrificing an equal opportunity for selection, we explained in the proposed rule that the proposed state groupings are intended to ensure that important characteristics of Medicare-certified HHAs that deliver care within state boundaries can be used to evaluate the primary intervention with greater generalizability and representativeness of the entire population of Medicare-certified HHAs in the nation. Data analysis of these characteristics employed the full data set of Medicare claims and OASIS quality data. Although some characteristics, such as beneficiary age and case-mix, yielded some variations from one state to another, other important characteristics do vary substantially and could influence how HHAs respond to the incentives of the model. Specifically, home health services utilization rates, tax-exemption status of the provider, the socioeconomic status of beneficiaries (as measured by the proportion of dually-eligible beneficiaries), and agency size (as measured by average number of episodes of care per HHA), are important characteristics that could influence outcomes of the model. Subsequently, we intend to study the impacts of these characteristics for purposes of designing future value-based purchasing models and programs. These characteristics and expected variations must be considered in the evaluation study to enable us to avoid erroneous inferences about how different types of HHAs will respond to HHVBP incentives.
Under our proposed state selection methodology, state groupings reflect regional variations that enhance the generalizability of the model. In line with this methodology, each grouping includes states that are similar in at least one important aforementioned characteristic while being geographically located in close proximity to one another. Using the criteria described above, the following geographic groupings were identified using Medicare claims-based data from calendar years 2013-2014. Each of the 50 states was assigned to one of the following geographic groups:
• Group #1: (VT, MA, ME, CT, RI, NH)
States in this group tend to have larger HHAs and have average utilization relative to other states.
• Group #2: (DE, NJ, MD, PA, NY)
States in this group tend to have larger HHAs, have lower utilization, and provide care to an average number of dually-eligible beneficiaries relative to other states.
• Group #3: (AL, GA, SC, NC, VA)
States in this group tend to have larger HHAs, have average utilization rates, and provide care to a high proportion of minorities relative to other states.
• Group #4: (TX, FL, OK, LA, MS)
States in this group have HHAs that tend to be for-profit, have very high utilization rates, and have a higher proportion of dually-eligible beneficiaries relative to other states.
• Group #5: (WA, OR, AK, HI, WY, ID)
States in this group tend to have smaller HHAs, have average utilization rates, and are more rural relative to other states.
• Group #6: (NM, CA, NV, UT, CO, AZ)
States in this group tend to have smaller HHAs, have average utilization rates, and provide care to a high proportion of minorities relative to other states.
• Group #7: (ND, SD, MT, WI, MN, IA)
States in this group tend to have smaller HHAs, have very low utilization rates, and are more rural relative to other states.
• Group #8: (OH, WV, IN, MO, NE., KS)
States in this group tend to have HHAs that are of average size, have average utilization rates, and provide care to a higher proportion of dually-eligible beneficiaries relative to other states.
• Group #9: (IL, KY, AR, MI, TN)
States in this group tend to have HHAs with higher utilization rates relative to other states.
We stated in the proposed rule that upon the careful consideration of the alternative selection methodologies discussed in that rule, including selecting states on a non-random basis, we proposed to use a selection methodology based on a randomized sampling of states within each of the nine regional groupings described above. We examined data on the evaluation elements listed in this section of the proposed rule and this final rule to determine if specific states could be identified in order to fulfill the needs of the evaluation. After careful review, we determined that each evaluation element could be measured by more than one state. As a result, we determined that it was necessary to apply a fair method of selection where each state would have a comparable opportunity of being selected and which would fulfill the need for a robust evaluation. The proposed nine groupings of states, as described in this section of the proposed rule and this final rule, permit the model to capture the essential elements of the evaluation including demographic, geographic, and market factors.
We explained in the proposed rule that the randomized sampling of states is without bias to any characteristics of any single state within any specific regional grouping, where no states are excluded, and no state appears more than once across any of the groupings. The randomized selection of states was completed using a scientifically-accepted computer algorithm designed for randomized sampling. The randomized selection of states was run on each of the previously described regional groupings using exactly the same process and, therefore, reflects a commonly accepted method of randomized sampling. This computer algorithm employs the aforementioned sampling parameters necessary to define randomized sampling and omits any human interaction once it runs.
Based on this sampling methodology, SAS Enterprise Guide (SAS EG) 5.1 software was used to run a computer algorithm designed to randomly select states from each grouping. SAS EG 5.1 and the computer algorithm were employed to conduct the randomized selection of states. SAS EG 5.1 represents an industry-standard for generating advanced analytics and provided a rigorous, standardized tool by which to satisfy the requirements of randomized selection. The key SAS commands employed include a “PROC SURVEYSELECT” statement coupled with the “METHOD=SRS” option used to specify simple random sampling as the sample selection method. A random number seed was generated by using the time of day from the computer's clock. The random number seed was used to produce random number generation. Note that no stratification was used within any of the nine geographically-diverse groupings to ensure there is an equal probability of selection within each grouping. For more information on this procedure and the underlying statistical methodology, please reference SAS support documentation at:
Based on consideration of the comments received and for the reasons discussed, we believe this state selection methodology provides the strongest evidence of producing meaningful results representative of the
In § 484.310, we proposed to codify the names of the states selected utilizing this proposed methodology, where one state from each of the nine groupings was selected. For each of these groupings, we proposed to use state borders to demarcate which Medicare-certified HHAs would be required to compete in this model: Massachusetts was randomly selected from Group 1, Maryland was randomly selected from Group 2, North Carolina was randomly selected from Group 3, Florida was randomly selected from Group 4, Washington was randomly selected from Group 5, Arizona was randomly selected from Group 6, Iowa was randomly selected from Group 7, Nebraska was randomly selected from Group 8, and Tennessee was randomly selected from Group 9. Thus, we explained in the proposed rule that if our methodology is finalized as proposed, all Medicare-certified HHAs that provide services in Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Florida, Washington, Arizona, Iowa, Nebraska, and Tennessee will be required to compete in this model. We invited comments on this proposed randomized selection methodology.
We summarize and respond to these comments at the end of this section. As discussed we are finalizing the state selection methodology as proposed without modification, as well as finalizing the states that were selected utilizing this methodology as codified in § 484.310.
We proposed that Total Performance Scores (TPS) and payment adjustments would be calculated based on an HHA's CCN
We received the following comments on the proposed selection methodology. As discussed, we are finalizing the selection methodology as proposed.
We proposed to use quarterly performance reports, annual payment adjustment reports, and annual publicly-available performance reports as a means of developing greater transparency of Medicare data on quality and aligning the competitive forces within the market to deliver care based on value over volume, and are finalizing this reporting structure here. The publicly-reported reports will inform home health industry
We proposed that competing HHAs would be scored for the quality of care delivered under the model based on their performance on measures compared to both the performance of their peers, defined by the same size cohort (either smaller- or larger-volume cohorts as defined in § 484.305), and their own past performance on the measures. We also proposed in § 484.305 to define larger-volume cohort to mean the group of competing HHAs within the boundaries of a selected state that are participating in Home Health Care Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HHCAHPS) in accordance with § 484.250 and to define smaller-volume cohort to mean the group of HHAs within the boundaries of a selected state that are exempt from participation in HHCAHPS in accordance with § 484.250. We also proposed where there are too few HHAs in the smaller-volume cohort in each state to compete in a fair manner (that is, when there is only one or two HHAs competing within a small cohort in a given state), these HHAs would be included in the larger-volume cohort for purposes of calculating the total performance score and payment adjustment without being measured on HHCAHPS. We requested comments on this proposed methodology.
We proposed that quality performance scores and relative peer rankings would be determined through the use of a baseline year (calendar year 2015) and subsequent performance periods for each competing HHA. Further, these reports will provide competing HHAs with an opportunity to track their quality performance relative to their peers and their own past performance. Using these reports provides a convenient and timely means for competing HHAs to assess and track their own respective performance as capacity is developed to improve or sustain quality over time.
Beginning with the data collected during the first quarter of CY 2016 (that is, data for the period January 1, 2016 to March 31, 2016), and for every quarter of the model thereafter, we proposed to provide each Medicare-certified HHA with a quarterly report that contains information on their performance during the quarter. We stated that we expect to make the first quarterly report available in July 2016, and make performance reports for subsequent quarters available in October, January and April. The final quarterly report would be made available in April 2021. We proposed that the quarterly reports would include a competing HHA's model-specific performance results with a comparison to other competing HHAs within its cohort (larger- or smaller-volume) within the state boundary. These model-specific performance results will complement all quality data sources already being provided through the QIES system and any other quality tracking system possibly being employed by HHAs. We note that all performance measures that competing HHAs will report through the QIES system are also already made available in the CASPER Reporting application. The primary difference between the two reports (CASPER reports and the model-specific performance report) is that the model-specific performance report we proposed consolidates the applicable performance measures used in the HHVBP Model and provides a peer-ranking to other competing HHAs within the same state and size-cohort. In addition, CASPER reports will provide quality data earlier than model-specific performance reports because CASPER reports are not limited by a quarterly run-out of data and a calculation of competing peer-rankings. For more information on the accessibility and functionality of the CASPER system, please reference the CASPER Provider Reporting Guide.
We proposed that the model-specific quarterly performance report will be made available to each HHA through a dedicated CMMI model-specific platform for data dissemination and include each HHA's relative ranking amongst its peers along with measurement scores and overall performance rankings.
We also proposed that a separate payment adjustment report would be provided once a year to each of the competing HHAs. This annual report will focus primarily on the payment adjustment percentage and include an explanation of when the adjustment will be applied and how this adjustment was determined relative to performance scores. Each competing HHA will receive its own annual payment adjustment report viewable only to that HHA.
We also proposed a separate, annual, publicly available quality report that would provide home health industry stakeholders, including providers and suppliers that refer their patients to HHAs, with an opportunity to confirm that the beneficiaries they are referring for home health services are being provided the best possible quality of care available.
We invited comments on the proposed reporting framework.
We proposed to codify in § 484.325 that competing HHAs will be subject to upward or downward payment adjustments based on the agency's Total Performance Score. We proposed that the model would consist of 5 performance years, where each performance year would link performance to the opportunity and risk for payment adjustment up to an applicable percent as defined in proposed § 484.305. The 1st performance year would transpire from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, and subsequently, all other performance years would be assessed on an annual basis through 2020 unless modified through rulemaking. We proposed that the first payment adjustment would begin January 1, 2018 applied to that calendar year based on 2016 performance data. Subsequently, all other payment adjustments would be made on an annual basis through the conclusion of the model. We proposed that payment adjustments would be increased incrementally over the course of the model with a maximum payment adjustment of 5-percent (upward or downward) in 2018 and 2019, a maximum payment adjustment of 6-percent (upward or downward) in 2020, and a maximum payment adjustment of 8-percent (upward or downward) in 2021 and 2022. We proposed to implement this model over a total of seven (7) years beginning on January 1, 2016, and ending on December 31, 2022.
After consideration of comments received, we are modifying the final payment adjustment percentages as discussed in Section G and finalized in § 484.305.
We proposed that the baseline year would run from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 and provide a basis from which each respective HHA's performance will be measured in each of the performance years. Data related to performance on quality measures will continue to be provided from the baseline year through the model's tenure using a dedicated HHVBP web-based platform specifically designed to disseminate data in this model (this “portal” will present and archive the previously described quarterly and annual quality reports). Further, HHAs will provide performance data on the three new quality measures discussed in section E5 through this platform as well. Any additional measures added through the model's tenure and proposed through future rulemaking, will use data from the previous calendar year as the baseline.
We proposed that new market entries (specifically, new competing HHAs delivering care in the boundaries of selected states) would also be measured from their first full calendar year of services in the state, which would be treated as baseline data for subsequent performance years under this model. The delivery of services would be measured by the number of episodes of care for Medicare beneficiaries and used to determine whether an HHA falls into the smaller- or larger-volume cohort. Furthermore, these new market entries would be competing under the HHVBP Model in the first full calendar year following the full calendar year baseline period.
We proposed that HHAs would be notified in advance of their first performance level and payment adjustment being finalized, based on the 2016 performance period (January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016), with their first payment adjustment to be applied January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. We proposed that each competing HHA would be notified of this first pending payment adjustment on August 1, 2017 and a preview period would run for 10 days through August 11, 2017. This preview period would provide each competing HHA an opportunity to reconcile any performance assessment issues relating to the calculation of scores prior to the payment adjustment taking effect, in accordance with the process in Section H—Preview and Period to Request Recalculation. Once the preview period ends, any changes would be reconciled and a report finalized no later than November 1, 2017 (or 60 days prior to the payment adjustment taking affect). As discussed further in section H, we are finalizing this proposal with modification, to allow for a longer preview period of quarterly performance reports and annual payment adjustment reports for all competing HHAs. Specifically, we are extending the preview period such that each HHA will be notified of the first pending payment adjustment in
We proposed that subsequent payment adjustments would be calculated based on the applicable full calendar year of performance data from the quarterly reports, with competing HHAs notified and payments adjusted, respectively, every year thereafter. As a sequential example, the second payment adjustment will occur January 1, 2019 based on a full 12 months of the CY 2017 performance period. Notification of the second adjustment will occur in August of 2018, followed by a 30-day preview period (under our modifications to the proposed notification and preview timeline, as discussed previously) and followed by reconciliation prior to November 1, 2018. Subsequent payment adjustments will continue to follow a similar timeline and process.
Beginning in CY 2019, we may consider revising this payment adjustment schedule and updating the payment adjustment more frequently than once each year if it is determined that a more timely application of the adjustment as it relates to performance improvement efforts that have transpired over the course of a calendar year would generate increased improvement in quality measures. Specifically, we would expect that having payment adjustments transpire closer together through more frequent performance periods would accelerate improvement in quality measures because HHAs would be able to justify earlier investments in quality efforts and be incentivized for improvements. In effect, this concept may be operationalized to create a smoothing effect where payment adjustments are based on overlapping 12-month performance periods that occur every 6 months rather than annually. As an example, the normal 12-month performance period occurring from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 might have an overlapping 12-month performance period occurring from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. Following the regularly scheduled January 1, 2022 payment adjustments, the next adjustments could be applied to payments beginning on July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. Depending on if and when more frequent payment adjustments would be applied, performance would be calculated based on the applicable 12-months of performance data, HHAs notified, and payments adjusted, respectively, every six months thereafter, until the conclusion of the model. As a result, separate performance periods would have a 6-month overlap through the conclusion of the model. HHAs would be notified through rulemaking and be given the opportunity to comment on any proposed changes to the frequency of payment adjustments.
We received the following comments on this proposed payment adjustment schedule.
We proposed that initially, the measures for the HHVBP Model would be predominantly drawn from the current OASIS,
1. Use a broad measure set that captures the complexity of the HHA service provided;
2. Incorporate the flexibility to include Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation (IMPACT) Act of 2014 measures that are cross-cutting amongst post-acute care settings;
3. Develop second-generation measures of patient outcomes, health and functional status, shared decision making, and patient activation;
4. Include a balance of process, outcome, and patient experience measures;
5. Advance the ability to measure cost and value;
6. Add measures for appropriateness or overuse; and,
7. Promote infrastructure investments.
A central driver of the proposed measure selection process was incorporating innovative thinking from the field while simultaneously drawing on the most current evidence-based literature and documented best practices. Broadly, we proposed measures that have a high impact on care delivery and support the combined priorities of HHS and CMS to improve health outcomes, quality, safety, efficiency, and experience of care for patients. To frame the selection process, we utilized the domains described in the CMS Quality Strategy that maps to the six National Quality Strategy (NQS) priority areas (
We proposed at § 484.315 that Medicare-certified HHAs will be evaluated using a starter set of quality measures (“starter set” refers to the quality measures for the first year of this model) designed to encompass multiple NQS domains, and provide future flexibility to incorporate and study newly developed measures over time. New and evolving measures will be considered for inclusion in subsequent years of this model and proposed through future rulemaking.
To create the proposed starter set we began researching the current set of OASIS measures that are being used within the health home environment.
So that measures for the HHVBP Model take a more holistic view of the patient beyond a particular disease state or care setting, we proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, measures, which include outcome measures as well as process measures, that have the potential to follow patients across multiple settings, reflect a multi-faceted approach, and foster the intersection of health care delivery and population health. A key consideration behind this approach is to use in performance year one (PY1) of the model proven measures that are readily available and meet a high impact need, and in subsequent model years augment this starter set with innovative measures that have the potential to be impactful and fill critical measure gap areas. All substantive changes or additions to the starter set or new measures would be proposed in future rulemaking. This approach to quality measure selection aims to balance the burden of collecting data with the inclusion of new and important measures. We carefully considered the potential burden on HHAs to report the measure data when developing the starter set, and prioritized measures that will draw both from claims data and data already collected in OASIS.
The majority of the measures proposed, as well as the majority of measures being finalized, in this model will use OASIS data currently being reported to CMS and linked to state-specific CCNs for selected states in order to promote consistency and to reduce the data collection burden for providers. Utilizing primarily OASIS data will allow the model to leverage reporting structures already in place to evaluate performance and identify weaknesses in care delivery. This model will also afford the opportunity to study measures developed in other care settings and new to the home health industry (hereinafter referred to as “New Measures”). Many of the New Measures have been used in other health care settings and are readily applicable to the home health environment (for example, influenza vaccination coverage for health care personnel). The final New Measures for PY1 are described in detail below. We proposed, and are finalizing with modification, in PY1 to collect data on these New Measures which have already been tested for validity, reliability, usability/feasibility, and sensitivity in
The initial set of measures proposed for PY1 of the model utilizes data collected via OASIS, Medicare claims, HHCAHPS survey data, and data reported directly from the HHAs to CMS. We proposed, in total, 10 process measures and 15 outcome measures (
Based on these two analyses, CMS expects that, at this time, HHAs that provide care to more beneficiaries that are maintenance-oriented will not be at a disadvantage in the model. We also do not expect any access issues for beneficiaries that have more maintenance needs because HHAs would not know whether the beneficiary has restorative or maintenance needs until the HHA initiates the episode of care and conducts the necessary assessments. Once the initial OASIS assessment is complete, the beneficiary will be included in measure calculation.
We are finalizing the measures related to improvement as proposed in the proposed rule, however, we are sensitive to this issue and will closely monitor whether HHVBP Model-specific measures have the potential to impact beneficiaries that require skilled care to maintain the patient's current condition, or to prevent or slow further deterioration of the patient's condition. If necessary, we will use future rulemaking if we determine that this issue has a meaningful detrimental effect on payments of those HHAs that provide more maintenance care. In addition, we are currently working on the development of valid and reliable stabilization measures that may be incorporated into the HHVBP Model in the future. One stabilization measure is referenced in Table 20 `Future Setting-specific Measure Constructs under Consideration'. The HHVBP Model is designed such that any measures determined to be good indicators of quality will be considered for use in the HHVBP Model in future years and may be added through the rulemaking process.
• Timely Initiation of Care (NQF0526)
• Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Care (NQF0538)
• Multifactor Fall Risk Assessment Conducted for All Patients Who Can Ambulate (NQF0537)
• Depression assessment conducted (NQF0518)
• Adverse Event for Improper Medication Administration and/or Side Effects (New Measure)
We are finalizing the remaining quality measures as proposed. The final starter set includes 6 process measures, 10 outcome measures and 5 HHCAHPS, and three New Measures.
The final PY1 measures are presented in the following figures.
Figure 5 provides details on the elements of the Home Health Care Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey (HHCAHPS) we proposed, and are finalizing, to include in the PY1 starter set. The HHVBP Model will not alter the HHCAHPS current scoring methodology or the participation requirements in any way. Details on participation requirements for HHCAHPS can be found at 42 CFR 484.250
As discussed in the proposed rule and the previous section of this final rule, the New Measures we proposed are not currently reported by Medicare-certified HHAs to CMS, but we believe fill gaps in the NQS Domains not completely covered by existing measures in the home health setting. We proposed that all competing HHAs in selected states, regardless of cohort size or number of episodes, will be required to submit data on the New Measures for all Medicare beneficiaries to whom they provide home health services within the state (unless an exception applies). We proposed at § 484.315(b) that competing HHAs would be required to report data on these New Measures. Competing HHAs will submit New Measure data through a dedicated HHVBP web-based platform. This web-based platform will function as a means to collect and distribute information from and to competing HHAs. Also, for those HHAs with a sufficient number of episodes of care to be subject to a payment adjustment, New Measures scores included in the final TPS for PY1 are only based on whether the HHA has submitted data to the HHVBP web-based platform or not. We proposed the following New Measures for competing HHAs:
• Advance Care Planning;
• Adverse Event for Improper Medication Administration and/or Side Effects;
• Influenza Vaccination Coverage for Home Health Care Personnel; and,
• Herpes Zoster (Shingles) Vaccination received by HHA patients.
For the reasons explained below and in consideration of the comments received, we are not including the proposed “Adverse Event for Improper Medication Administration and/or Side Effects” as one of the final New Measures. We are finalizing the other three proposed New Measures without modification.
Advance Care Planning is an NQF-endorsed process measure in the NQS domain of Person- and Caregiver-centered experience and outcomes (
We proposed that the measure would be numerically expressed by a ratio whose numerator and denominator are as follows:
Advance care planning provides that the health care plan is consistent with the patient's wishes and preferences. Therefore, studying this measure within the HHA environment allows for further analysis of planning for the “what ifs” that may occur during the patient's lifetime. In addition, the use of this measure is expected to result in an increase in the number of patients with advance care plans. Increased advance care planning among the elderly is expected to result in enhanced patient autonomy and reduced hospitalizations and in-hospital deaths.
We invited comments on this proposed measure.
We proposed an Adverse Event for Improper Medication Administration and/or Side Effects measure that aligns with the NQS domain of Safety (specifically “medication safety”—
We invited comments on the Adverse Drug Events measure.
Staff Immunizations (Influenza Vaccination Coverage among Health Care Personnel) (NQF #0431) is an NQF-endorsed measure that addresses the NQS domain of Population Health (
We proposed that the measure would be numerically expressed by a ratio whose numerator and denominator are as follows:
(1) Received an influenza vaccination administered at the health care agency, or reported in writing (paper or electronic) or provided documentation that influenza vaccination was received elsewhere; or
(2) Were determined to have a medical contraindication/condition of severe allergic reaction to eggs or to other component(s) of the vaccine, or history of Guillain‐Barré Syndrome within 6 weeks after a previous influenza vaccination; or
(3) Declined influenza vaccination; or
(4) Persons with unknown vaccination status or who do not otherwise meet any of the definitions of the above‐mentioned numerator categories.
We proposed that each of the above groups would be divided by the number of health care personnel who are working in the HHA for at least one working day between October 1 and March 31 of the following year, regardless of clinical responsibility or patient contact.
1. Employees: all persons who receive a direct paycheck from the reporting HHA (that is, on the agency's payroll);
2. Licensed independent practitioners: include physicians (MD, DO), advanced practice nurses, and physician assistants only who are affiliated with the reporting agency who do not receive a direct paycheck from the reporting HHA; and
3. Adult students/trainees and volunteers: include all adult students/trainees and volunteers who do not receive a direct paycheck from the reporting HHA.
We stated in the proposed rule that this measure for the HHVBP Model is expected to result in increased influenza vaccination among home health professionals. Reporting health care personnel influenza vaccination status would allow HHAs to better identify and target unvaccinated personnel. Increased influenza vaccination coverage among HHA personnel would be expected to result in reduced morbidity and mortality related to influenza virus infection among patients, especially elderly and vulnerable populations.
We proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, that information on the above numerator and denominator will be reported by HHAs through the HHVBP Web-based platform, in addition to other information related to this measure as the Secretary deems appropriate.
We invited comments on the proposed Staff Influenza Vaccination measure.
We proposed to adopt this measure for the HHVBP Model because it aligns with the NQS Quality Strategy Goal to Promote Effective Prevention & Treatment of Chronic Disease. Currently this measure is not endorsed by NQF or collected in OASIS. However, due to the severe physical consequences of symptoms associated with shingles,
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of herpes zoster vaccine in adults age 50 and older. In addition, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) currently recommends that herpes zoster vaccine be routinely administered to adults, age 60 years and older.
The incidence of herpes zoster outbreak increases as people age, with a significant increase after age 50. Older people are more likely to experience the severe nerve pain known as post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN),
We stated in the proposed rule that studying this measure in the home
We proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, that information on the above numerator and denominator will be reported by HHAs through the HHVBP web-based platform, in addition to other information related to this measure as the Secretary deems appropriate.
We invited public comment on the proposed Herpes Zosters Vaccine measure.
As previously stated, the quality measures that we proposed to use in the performance years, as well as the quality measures that we are finalizing in this final rule, are aligned with the six NQS domains: Patient and Caregiver-Centered Experience and Outcomes; Clinical Quality of Care; Care Coordination; Population Health; Efficiency and Cost Reduction; and, Safety (
We proposed to filter these NQS domains and the HHVBP quality measures into four classifications to align directly with the measure weighting utilized in calculating payment adjustments. The four HHVBP classifications we proposed are: Clinical Quality of Care, Outcome and Efficiency, Person- and Caregiver-Centered Experience, and New Measures reported by the HHAs.
We did not receive any public comments on our proposed measure classifications for the HHVBP Model and are finalizing these classifications with one modification. Specifically, we are revising Classification II from “Outcome and Efficiency” to “Care Coordination and Efficiency.” The definition of this classification is unchanged from the proposed rule. We are making this change to be more inclusive about this classification designation, which includes measures/NQS domains relating to care coordination.
These final four classifications capture the multi-dimensional nature of health care provided by the HHA. These classifications are further defined as:
• Classification I—Clinical Quality of Care: Measures the quality of health care services provided by eligible professionals and paraprofessionals within the home health environment.
• Classification II—Care Coordination and Efficiency: Outcomes measure the end result of care including coordination of care provided to the beneficiary. Efficiencies measure maximizing quality and minimizing use of resources.
• Classification III—Person- and Caregiver-Centered Experience: Measures the beneficiary and their caregivers' experience of care.
• Classification IV—New Measures: Measures not currently reported by Medicare-certified HHAs to CMS, but that may fill gaps in the NQS Domains not completely covered by existing measures in the home health setting.
We proposed that measures within each classification would be weighted the same for the purposes of payment adjustment. We are weighting at the individual measure level and not the classification level. Classifications are for organizational purposes only. We proposed this approach because we did not want any one measure within a classification to be more important than another measure. Under this approach, a measure's weight will remain the same even if some of the measures within a classification group have no available data. We stated in the proposed rule that weighting will be re-examined in subsequent years of the model and be subject to the rulemaking process. We invited comments on the proposed weighting methodology for the HHVBP Model.
The methodology we proposed, and are finalizing in this final rule for the reasons discussed herein, for assessing each HHA's total annual performance is based on a score calculated using the starter set of quality measures that apply to the HHA (based on a minimum number of cases, as discussed herein). The methodology will provide an assessment on a quarterly basis for each HHA and will result in an annual distribution of value-based payment adjustments among HHAs so that HHAs achieving the highest performance scores will receive the largest upward payment adjustment. The methodology includes three primary features:
• The HHA's Total Performance Score (TPS) will be determined using the higher of an HHA's achievement or improvement score for each measure;
• All measures within the Clinical Quality of Care, Care Coordination and Efficiency, and Person and Caregiver-Centered Experience classifications will have equal weight and will account for 90-percent of the TPS (
• The HHA performance score would reflect all of the measures that apply to the HHA based on a minimum number of cases defined below.
For the reasons discussed in more detail later in this section, we are finalizing our proposed performance scoring methodology with one modification related to the rounding up or down of achievement and improvement scoring used in the calculation of the Total Performance Score.
We proposed, and are finalizing in this final rule, in § 484.320 to calculate the TPS by adding together points awarded to Medicare-certified HHAs on the starter set of measures, including the New Measures. As explained in the proposed rule, we considered several factors when developing the performance scoring methodology for the HHVBP Model. First, it is important that the performance scoring methodology be straightforward and transparent to HHAs, patients, and other stakeholders. HHAs must be able to clearly understand performance scoring methods and performance expectations to maximize quality improvement efforts. The public must understand performance score methods to utilize publicly-reported information when choosing HHAs.
Second, we believe the performance scoring methodology for the HHVBP Model should be aligned appropriately with the quality measurements adopted for other Medicare value-based purchasing programs including those introduced in the hospital and skilled nursing home settings. This alignment will facilitate the public's understanding of quality measurement information disseminated in these programs and foster more informed consumer decision-making about their health care choices.
Third, we believe that differences in performance scores must reflect true differences in quality performance. To make sure that this point is addressed in the performance scoring methodology for the HHVBP Model, we assessed quantitative characteristics of the measures, including the current state of measure development, number of measures, and the number and grouping of measure classifications.
Fourth, we believe that both quality achievement and improvement must be measured appropriately in the performance scoring methodology for the HHVBP Model. The methodology specifies that performance scores under the HHVBP Model are calculated utilizing the higher of achievement or improvement scores for each measure. The impact of performance scores utilizing achievement and improvement on HHAs' behavior and the resulting payment implications was also considered. Using the higher of achievement or improvement scores allows the model to recognize HHAs that have made great improvements, though their measured performance score may still be relatively lower in comparison to other HHAs.
Fifth, through careful measure selection we intend to eliminate, or at least control for, unintended consequences such as undermining better outcomes to patients or rewarding inappropriate care. As discussed above, when available, NQF endorsed measures will be used. In addition we are adopting measures that we believe are closely associated with better outcomes in the HHA setting in order to incentivize genuine improvements and sustain positive achievement while retaining the integrity of the model.
Sixth, we intend that the model will utilize the most currently available data to assess HHA performance. We recognize that these data would not be available instantaneously due to the time required to process quality measurement information accurately; however, we intend to make every effort to process data in the timeliest fashion. Using more current data will result in a more accurate performance score while recognizing that HHAs need time to report measure data.
Many of the key elements of the HHVBP Model performance scoring methodology that we proposed, and are finalizing in this final rule for the reasons described herein, are aligned with the scoring methodology of the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (HVBP) in order to leverage the rigorous analysis and review underpinning that Program's approach to value-based purchasing in the hospital sector. The HVBP Program includes as one of its core elements the scoring methodology included in the 2007 Report to Congress “Plan to Implement a Medicare Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program” (hereinafter referred to as “The 2007 HVBP Report”).
In the HVBP Program, the Performance Assessment Model aggregates points on the individual quality measures across different quality measurement domains to calculate a hospital's TPS. Similarly, the proposed HHVBP Model would aggregate points on individual measures across four measure classifications derived from the 6 CMS/NQS domains as described above (
We proposed, and are finalizing for the reasons described herein, that under the model, an HHA will be awarded points only for “applicable measures.” An “applicable measure” is one for which the HHA has provided 20 home health episodes of care per year. Points awarded for each applicable measure will be aggregated to generate a TPS. As described in the benchmark section below, HHAs will have the opportunity to receive 0 to 10 points for each measure in the Clinical Quality of Care, Care Coordination and Efficiency, and Person and Caregiver-Centered Experience classifications. Each measure will have equal weight regardless of the total number of measures in each of the first three classifications. In contrast, we proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, to score the New Measures in a different way. For each New Measure, HHAs will receive 10 points if they report the New Measure or 0 points if they do not report the measure during the performance
We proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, to calculate the TPS for the HHVBP methodology similarly to the TPS calculation that has been finalized under the HVBP program. The performance scoring methodology for the HHVBP Model will include determining performance standards (benchmarks and thresholds) using the 2015 baseline period performance year's quality measure data, scoring HHAs based on their achievement and/or improvement with respect to those performance standards, and weighting each of the classifications by the number of measures employed, as presented in further detail in Section G below.
For scoring HHAs' performance on measures in the Clinical Quality of Care, Care Coordination and Efficiency, and Person and Caregiver-Centered Experience classifications, we proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, to adopt an approach using several key elements from the scoring methodology set forth in the 2007 HVBP Report and the successfully implemented HVBP Program
In determining the achievement points for each measure, HHAs will receive points along an achievement range, which is a scale between the achievement threshold and a benchmark. We proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, that the achievement threshold will be calculated as the median of all HHAs' performance on the specified quality measure during the baseline period and to calculate the benchmark as the mean of the top decile of all HHAs' performance on the specified quality measure during the baseline period. Unlike the HVBP Program that uses a national sample, this model will calculate both the achievement threshold and the benchmark separately for each selected state and for HHA cohort size. Under this methodology, we will have benchmarks and achievement thresholds for both the larger-volume cohort and for the smaller-volume cohort of HHAs (defined in each state based on a baseline period that runs from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015). Another way HHVBP differs from the Hospital VBP is this model only uses 2015 as the baseline year for the measures included in the starter set. For the starter set used in the model, 2015 will consistently be used as the baseline period in order to evaluate the degree of change that may occur over the multiple years of the model. In determining improvement points for each measure, we proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, that HHAs will receive points along an improvement range, which is a scale indicating change between an HHA's performance during the performance period and the baseline period. In addition, as in the achievement calculation, the benchmark and threshold will be calculated separately for each state and for HHA cohort size so that HHAs will only be competing with those HHAs in their state and their size cohort.
We proposed the achievement scoring under the HHVBP Model be based on the Performance Assessment Model set forth in the 2007 HVBP Report and as implemented under the HVBP Program. An HHA could earn 0-10 points for achievement for each measure in the Clinical Quality of Care, Care Coordination and Efficiency, and Person and Caregiver-Centered Experience classifications based on where its performance during the performance period falls relative to the achievement threshold and the benchmark, according to the following formula:
We proposed that all achievement points would be rounded up or down to the nearest point (for example, an achievement score of 4.55 would be rounded to 5). After considering the potential skewing of HHA ranking that would occur with rounding up to the nearest point, we are finalizing that all achievement points will be rounded up or down to the third decimal point (for example, an achievement score of 4.5555 would be rounded to 4.556). The will ensure greater precision in scoring and ranking HHAs within their cohorts.
HHAs could receive an achievement score as follows:
• An HHA with performance equal to or higher than the benchmark could receive the maximum of 10 points for achievement.
• An HHA with performance equal to or greater than the achievement threshold (but below the benchmark) could receive 1-9 points for achievement, by applying the formula above.
• An HHA with performance less than the achievement threshold could receive 0 points for achievement.
We invited comments on the proposed methodology for scoring HHAs on achievement.
In keeping with the approach used by the HVBP Program, we proposed that an HHA could earn 0-10 points based on how much its performance during the performance period improved from its performance on each measure in the Clinical Quality of Care, Care Coordination and Efficiency, and Person and Caregiver-Centered Experience classifications during the baseline period. A unique improvement range for each measure will be established for each HHA that defines the difference between the HHA's baseline period score and the same state and size level benchmark for the measure used in the achievement scoring calculation described previously, according to the following formula:
We proposed that all improvement points will be rounded to the nearest point and are now finalizing that improvement points will be rounded up or down to the third decimal point (see example above). If an HHA's performance on the measure during the performance period was:
• Equal to or higher than the benchmark score, the HHA could receive an improvement score of 10 points;
• Greater than its baseline period score but below the benchmark (within the improvement range), the HHA could receive an improvement score of 0-10, based on the formula above; or
• Equal to or lower than its baseline period score on the measure, the HHA could receive 0 points for improvement.
We invited comments on the proposed methodology for scoring HHAs on improvement.
For illustrative purposes we present the following examples of how the performance scoring methodology will be applied in the context of the measures in the Clinical Quality of Care, Care Coordination and Efficiency, and Person and Caregiver-Centered Experience classifications. These HHA examples were selected from an empirical database created from 2013/2014 data from the Home Health Compare archived data, claims data and enrollment data to support the development of the HHVBP permutation of the Performance Assessment Model, and all performance scores are calculated for the pneumonia measure, with respect to the number of individuals assessed and administered the pneumococcal vaccine. We note that the figures and examples below are the same figures and examples set forth in the proposed rule, updated to reflect our final policy on rounding of these scores, as discussed previously.
Figure 7 shows the scoring for HHA `A', as an example. The benchmark calculated for the pneumonia measure in this case was 0.875 (the mean value of the top decile in 2013), and the achievement threshold was 0.474 (the performance of the median or the 50th percentile among HHAs in 2013). HHA A's 2014 performance rate of 0.910 during the performance period for this measure exceeds the benchmark, so HHA A would earn 10 (the maximum) points for its achievement score. The HHA's performance rate on a measure is expressed as a decimal. In the illustration, HHA A's performance rate of 0.910 means that 91-percent of the applicable patients that were assessed were given the pneumococcal vaccine. In this case, HHA A has earned the maximum number of 10 possible achievement points for this measure and thus, its improvement score is irrelevant in the calculation.
Figure 7 also shows the scoring for HHA `B'. As referenced below, HHA B's performance on this measure went from 0.212 (which was below the achievement threshold) in the baseline period to 0.703 (which is above the achievement threshold) in the performance period. Applying the achievement scale, HHA B would earn 5.640 points for achievement, calculated as follows: [9 * ((0.703 − 0.474)/(0.875 − 0.474))] + 0.5 = 5.640.
Checking HHA B's improvement score yields the following result: Based on HHA B's period-to-period improvement, from 0.212 in the baseline year to 0.703 in the performance year, HHA B would earn 6.906 points, calculated as follows: [10 * ((0.703 − 0.212)/(0.875 − 0.212))] − 0.5 = 6.906. Because the higher of the achievement and improvement scores is used, HHA B would receive 6.906 points for this measure.
In Figure 8, HHA `C' yielded a decline in performance on the pneumonia measure, falling from 0.571 to 0.462 (a decline of 0.11 points). HHA C's performance during the performance period is lower than the achievement threshold of 0.472 and, as a result, receives 0 points based on achievement. It also receives 0 points for improvement, because its performance during the performance period is lower than its performance during the baseline period.
The HHVBP Model provides us with the opportunity to study new quality measures. We proposed that the New Measures for PY1 would be reported directly by the HHA and would account for 10-percent of the TPS regardless of the number of measures in the other three classifications (we refer the reader to 80 FR 39890 for further discussion of our proposed scoring methodology for New Measures). For the reasons set forth in the proposed rule and in response to comments below, we are finalizing our proposed scoring methodology for New Measures, revised only to reflect that the final starter set will include three, rather than four, New Measures, as discussed in section E5. Under our final methodology, the final three New Measures that we are adopting for PY1 will be reported directly by the HHA and will account for 10-percent of the TPS regardless of the number of measures in the other three classifications. HHAs that report on these measures will receive 10 points out of a maximum of 10 points for each of the 3 measures in the New Measure classification. Hence, a HHA that reports on all 3 measures will receive 30 points out of a maximum of 30. An HHA will receive 0 points for each measure that it fails to report on. If an HHA reports on all 3 measures, it will receive 30 points for the classification and 10 points (30/30 * 10 points) will be added to its TPS because the New Measure classification has a maximum weight of 10 percent. If an HHA reports on 2 of 3 measures, it will receive 20 points of 30 points available for the classification and 6.667 points (20/30 * 10 points) added to its TPS. If an HHA reports on 1 of 3 measures, they will receive 10 points of 30 points available for the classification and 3.333 points (10/30 * 10 points) added to their TPS. If an HHA reports on 0 of 3 measures, they will receive 0 points and have no points added to their TPS. We intend to update these measures through future rulemaking to allow us to study newer, leading-edge measures as well as retire measures that no longer require such analysis.
We invited comments on the proposed scoring methodology for New Measures.
We proposed that while no HHA in a selected state would be exempt from the HHVBP Model, there may be periods when an HHA does not receive a payment adjustment because there are not an adequate number of episodes of care to generate sufficient quality measure data. We proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, that the minimum threshold for an HHA to receive a score on a given measure will be 20 home health episodes of care per year for HHAs that have been certified for at least 6-months. If a competing HHA does not meet this threshold to generate scores on five or more of the Clinical Quality of Care, Care Coordination and Efficiency, and Person and Caregiver-Centered Experience measures, no payment adjustment will be made, and
We explained in the proposed rule that HHAs with very low case volumes will either increase their volume in later performance years, and be subject to future payment adjustment, or the HHAs' volume will remain very low and the HHAs would continue to not have their payment adjusted in future years. Based on the most recent data available at this time, a very small number of HHAs are reporting on less than five of the total number of measures included in the Clinical Quality of Care, Care Coordination and Efficiency, and Person and Caregiver-Centered Experience classifications and account for less than 0.5 percent of the claims made over 1,900 HHAs delivering care within the nine selected states. We stated that we expect very little impact of very low service volume HHAs on the model due to the low number of low-volume HHAs and because it is unlikely that a HHA will reduce the amount of service to such a low level to avoid a payment adjustment. Although these HHAs will not be subject to payment adjustments, they will remain in the model and have access to the same technical assistance as all other HHAs in the model, and will receive quality reports on any measures for which they do have 20 episodes of care, and a future opportunity to compete for payment adjustments.
We invited comments on the proposed minimum number of cases to receive a score on outcome and clinical quality measures.
We provide below an example of the payment methodology. We note that this is the same example provided in the proposed rule (see 80 FR 39891), modified only to reflect our final policy to include 21 (rather than 25) measures in the Clinical Quality of Care, Care Coordination and Efficiency, and Person and Caregiver-Centered Experience classifications and three (rather than four) New Measures in the final starter set for PY1.
HHA “A” has at least 20 episodes of care in a 12-month period for only nine (9) quality measures out of a possible 21 measures from three of the four classifications (except the New Measures). Under the final scoring methodology outlined above, HHA A would be awarded 0, 0, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7, 9, and 10 points, respectively, for these measures. HHA A's total earned points for the three classifications would be calculated by adding together all the points awarded to HHA A, resulting in a total of 45 points. HHA A's total possible points would be calculated by multiplying the total number of measures for which the HHA reported on least 20 episodes (nine) by the maximum number of points for those measures (10), yielding a total of 90 possible points. HHA A's score for the three classifications would be the total earned points (45) divided by the total possible points (90) multiplied by 90 because as mentioned in section E7, the Clinical Quality of Care, Care Coordination and Efficiency, and Person and Caregiver-Centered Experience classifications account for 90-percent of the TPS and the New Measures classification accounts for 10-percent of the TPS, which yields a result of 45. In this example, HHAs also reported all 3 measures and would receive the full 10 points for the New Measures. As a result, the TPS for HHA A would be 55 (45 plus 10). In addition, as specified in Section E:7—Weighting, all measures have equal weights regardless of their classification (except for New Measures) and the total earned points for the three classifications can be calculated by adding the points awarded for each such measure together.
We proposed to codify at 42 CFR 484.330 a methodology for applying value-based payment adjustments to home health services under the HHVBP Model. We proposed that payment adjustments would be made to the HH PPS final claim payment amount as calculated in accordance with § 484.205 using a linear exchange function (LEF) similar to the methodology utilized by the HVBP Program. The LEF is used to translate an HHA's TPS into a percentage of the value-based payment adjustment earned by each HHA under the HHVBP Model. The LEF was identified by the HVBP Program as the simplest and most straightforward option to provide the same marginal incentives to all hospitals, and we believe the same to be true for HHAs. We proposed the function's intercept at zero percent, meaning those HHAs that have a TPS that is average in relationship to other HHAs in their cohort (a zero percent), would not receive any payment adjustment. Payment adjustments for each HHA with a score above zero percent would be determined by the slope of the LEF. In addition we proposed to set the slope of the LEF for the first performance year, CY 2016, so that the estimated aggregate value-based payment adjustments for CY 2016 are equal to 5-percent of the estimated aggregate base operating episode payment amount for CY 2018. The estimated aggregate base operating episode payment amount is the total amount of episode payments made to all the HHAs by Medicare in each individual state in the larger- and smaller-volume cohorts respectively.
We provided in Figure 9 of the proposed rule an example of how the LEF is calculated and how it would be applied to calculate the percentage payment adjustment to a HHA's TPS (we refer the reader to 80 FR 39891 through 39892 for further discussion of our proposal). For this example, we applied the 8-percent payment adjustment level that was proposed to be used in the final 2 years of the HHVBP Model, and noted that the rate
We invited comments on this proposed payment adjustment methodology.
We believe this will provide HHAs more time to become familiar with the operation of the model before applying the higher percentage payment adjustments in later years. Additionally, under our final policy, we are reducing the payment adjustment for CY 2021 from 8-percent to 7-percent to establish a more gradual payment adjustment incentive schedule of 3-percent (in 2018), 5-percent (in 2019), 6-percent (in 2020), 7-percent (in 2021) and, 8-percent (in 2022).
Figure 9 provides an example of how the LEF is calculated and how it is applied to calculate the percentage payment adjustment to a HHA's TPS under our final policy. For this example, we applied the 8-percent payment adjustment level that will be used in the final year of the HHVBP Model (CY 2022) under our final policy. The rate for the payment adjustments for other years would be proportionally less.
Step #1 involves the calculation of the `Prior Year Aggregate HHA Payment Amount' (
Step #2 involves the calculation of the `8-percent Payment Reduction Amount' (C3 of Figure 9) for each HHA. The `Prior Year Aggregate HHA Payment Amount' is multiplied by the `8-percent Payment Reduction Rate'. The aggregate of the `8-percent Payment Reduction Amount' is the numerator of the LEF.
Step #3 involves the calculation of the `Final TPS Adjusted Reduction Amount' (C4 of Figure 9) by multiplying the `8-percent Payment Reduction Amount' from Step #2 by the TPS (C1) divided by 100. The aggregate of the `TPS Adjusted Reduction Amount' is the denominator of the LEF.
Step #4 involves calculating the LEF (C5 of Figure 9) by dividing the aggregate `8-percent Payment Reduction Amount' by the aggregate `TPS Adjusted Reduction Amount'.
Step #5 involves the calculation of the `Final TPS Adjusted Payment Amount' (C6 of Figure 9) by multiplying the `TPS Adjusted Reduction Amount' (C4) by the LEF (C5). This is an intermediary value used to calculate `Quality Adjusted Payment Rate'.
Step #6 involves the calculation of the `Quality Adjusted Payment Rate' (C7 of Figure 9) that the HHA will receive instead of the 8-percent reduction in payment. This is an intermediary step to determining the payment adjustment rate. For CY 2022, the payment adjustment in this column will range from 0-percent to 16-percent depending on the quality of care provided.
Step #7 involves the calculation of the `Final Percent Payment Adjustment' (C8 of Figure 9) that will be applied to the HHA payments after the performance period. It simply involves the CY payment adjustment percent (as finalized, in 2018, 3-percent; in 2019, 5-percent; in 2020, 6-percent; in 2021, 7-percent; and in 2022, 8-percent). In this example, we use the maximum eight-percent (8-percent) subtraction to the `Quality Adjusted Payment Rate'. Note that the payment adjustment percentage is capped at no more than plus or minus 8-percent for each respective performance period and the payment adjustment will occur on the final claim payment amount.
We proposed that Medicare-certified HHAs be provided two separate opportunities to review scoring information under the HHVBP Model. First, HHAs will have the opportunity to review their quarterly quality reports following each quarterly posting; second, competing HHAs will have the opportunity to review their TPS and payment adjustment calculations, and request a recalculation if a discrepancy is identified due to a CMS error as described in this section. These processes would help educate and inform each competing Medicare-certified HHA on the direct relation between the payment adjustment and performance measure scores.
We proposed to inform HHAs quarterly of their performance on each of the individual quality measures used to calculate the TPS. We proposed that an HHA would have ten days after the quarterly reports are provided to request a recalculation of measure scores if it believes there is evidence of a discrepancy. We stated that we will adjust the score if it is determined that the discrepancy in the calculated measure scores was the result of our failure to follow measurement calculation protocols.
In addition, we proposed to inform each competing HHA of the TPS and payment adjustment amount in an annual report. We proposed that these annual reports would be provided to competing HHAs each August 1st prior to the calendar year for which the payment adjustment would be applied. Similar to quarterly reports, we proposed that HHAs will have ten days to request a recalculation of their TPS and payment adjustment amount from the date information is made available. For both the quarterly reports and the annual report containing the TPS and payment adjustments, competing HHAs will only be permitted to request scoring recalculations, and must include a specific basis for the requested recalculation. We will not be responsible for providing HHAs with the underlying source data utilized to generate performance measure scores. Each HHA has access to this data via the QIES system. The final TPS and payment adjustment will then be provided to competing Medicare-certified HHAs in a final report no later than 60 days in advance of the payment adjustment taking effect.
The TPS from the annual performance report will be calculated based on the calculation of performance measures contained in the quarterly reports that have already been provided and reviewed by the HHAs. As a result, we stated in the proposed rule that we believe that quarterly reviews will provide substantial opportunity to identify and correct errors and resolve discrepancies, thereby minimizing the challenges to the annual performance scores linked to payment adjustment.
As described above, a quarterly performance report will be provided to all competing HHAs within the selected states beginning with the first quarter of CY 2016 being reported in July 2016. We proposed that HHAs would submit recalculation requests for both quarterly quality performance measure reports and for the TPS and payment adjustment reports via an email link provided on the model-specific Web page. We proposed that the request form would be entered by a person who has authority to sign on behalf of the HHA and be submitted within 10 days of receiving the quarterly data report or the annual TPS and payment adjustment report.
We proposed that requests for both quarterly report measure score recalculations or TPS and payment adjustment recalculations would contain the following information:
• The provider's name, address associated with the services delivered, and CMS Certification Number (CCN);
• The basis for requesting recalculation to include the specific quality measure data that the HHA believes is inaccurate or the calculation the HHA believes is incorrect;
• Contact information for a person at the HHA with whom CMS or its agent can communicate about this request, including name, email address, telephone number, and mailing address (must include physical address, not just a post office box); and,
• A copy of any supporting documentation the HHA wishes to submit in electronic form via the model-specific Web page.
Following receipt of a request for quarterly report measure score recalculations or a request for TPS and payment adjustment recalculation, we proposed that CMS or its agent would:
• Provide an email acknowledgement, using the contact information provided in the recalculation request, to the HHA contact notifying the HHA that the request has been received;
• Review the request to determine validity, and determine whether the requested recalculation results in a score change altering performance measure scores or the HHA's TPS;
• If recalculation results in a performance measure score or TPS
• Provide a formal response to the HHA contact, using the contact information provided in the recalculation request, notifying the HHA of the outcome of the review and recalculation process.
We proposed that recalculation and subsequent communication of the results of these determinations would occur as soon as administratively feasible following the submission of requests. Additionally, we stated that we will develop and adopt an appeals mechanism under the model through future rulemaking in advance of the application of any payment adjustments.
The following is a summary of comments we received on the proposed quarterly quality measure reports and annual TPS preview periods.
We proposed, and are finalizing in this rule, to codify at § 484.315(c) that competing HHAs in selected states will be required to collect and report information to CMS necessary for the purposes of monitoring and evaluating this model as required by statute.
We intend to use a multilevel approach to evaluation. Here, we intend to conduct analyses at the state, HHA, and patient levels. Based on the state groupings discussed in the section on selection of competing HHAs, we believe there are several ways in which we can draw comparison groups and remain open to scientifically-sound, rigorous methods for evaluating the effect of the model intervention.
The evaluation effort may require of HHAs participating in the model additional data specifically for evaluation purposes. Such requirements for additional data to carry out model evaluation will be in compliance with 42 CFR 403.1105 which, as of January 1, 2015, requires entities participating in the testing of a model under section 1115A to collect and report such information, including protected health information (as defined at 45 CFR 160.103), as the Secretary determines is necessary to monitor and evaluate the model. We will consider all Medicare-certified HHAs providing services within a state selected for the model to be participating in the testing of this model because the competing HHAs will be receiving payment from CMS under the model.
We invited comments on the proposed evaluation plan.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v)(II) of the Act requires that for 2007 and subsequent years, each HHA submit to the Secretary in a form and manner, and at a time, specified by the Secretary, such data that the Secretary determines are appropriate for the measurement of health care quality. To the extent that an HHA does not submit data in accordance with this clause, the Secretary is directed to reduce the home health market basket percentage increase applicable to the HHA for such year by 2 percentage points. As provided at section 1895(b)(3)(B)(vi) of the Act, depending on the market basket percentage for a particular year, the 2 percentage point reduction under section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v)(I) of the Act may result in this percentage increase, after application of the productivity adjustment under section 1895(b)(3)(B)(vi)(I) of the Act, being less than 0.0 percent for a year, and may result in payment rates under the Home Health PPS for a year being less than payment rates for the preceding year.
Section 2(a) of the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (the IMPACT Act) (Pub. L. 113-185, enacted on Oct. 6, 2014) amended Title XVIII of the Act, in part, by adding a new section 1899B, which imposes new data reporting requirements for certain post-acute care (PAC) providers, including HHAs. New section 1899B of the Act is titled, “Standardized Post-Acute Care (PAC) Assessment Data for Quality, Payment, and Discharge Planning”. Under section 1899B(a)(1) of the Act, certain post-acute care (PAC) providers (defined in section 1899B(a)(2)(A) of the Act to include HHAs, SNFs, IRFs, and LTCHs) must submit standardized patient assessment data in accordance with section 1899B(b) of the Act, data on quality measures required under section 1899B(c)(1) of the Act, and data on resource use, and other measures required under section 1899B(d)(1) of the Act. The Act also sets out specified application dates for each of the measures. The Secretary must specify the quality, resource use, and other measures no later than the applicable specified application date defined in section 1899B(a)(2)(E) of the Act.
Section 1899B(b) of the Act describes the standardized patient assessment data that PAC providers are required to submit in accordance with section 1899B(b)(1) of the Act; requires the Secretary, to the extent practicable, to match claims data with standardized patient assessment data in accordance with section 1899B(b)(2) of the Act; and requires the Secretary, as soon as practicable, to revise or replace existing patient assessment data to the extent that such data duplicate or overlap with standardized patient assessment data, in accordance with section 1899B(b)(3) of the Act.
Sections 1899B(c)(1) and (d)(1) of the Act direct the Secretary to specify measures that relate to at least five stated quality domains and three stated resource use and other measure domains. Section 1899B(c)(1) of the Act provides that the quality measures on which PAC providers, including HHAs, are required to submit standardized patient assessment data and other necessary data specified by the Secretary must be in accordance with, at least, the following domains:
• Functional status, cognitive function, and changes in function and cognitive function;
• Skin integrity and changes in skin integrity;
• Medication reconciliation;
• Incidence of major falls; and
• Accurately communicating the existence of and providing for the transfer of health information and care preferences of an individual to the individual, family caregiver of the individual, and providers of services furnishing items and services to the individual when the individual transitions (1) from a hospital or Critical Access Hospital (CAH) to another applicable setting, including a PAC provider or the home of the individual, or (2) from a PAC provider to another applicable setting, including a different PAC provider, hospital, CAH, or the home of the individual.
Section 1899B(c)(2)(A) provides that, to the extent possible, the Secretary must require such reporting through the use of a PAC assessment instrument and modify the instrument as necessary to enable such use.
Section 1899B(d)(1) of the Act provides that the resource use and other measures on which PAC providers, including HHAs, are required to submit any necessary data specified by the Secretary, which may include standardized assessment data in addition to claims data, must be in accordance with, at least, the following domains:
• Resource use measures, including total estimated Medicare spending per beneficiary;
• Discharge to community; and
• Measures to reflect all-condition risk-adjusted potentially preventable hospital readmission rates.
Sections 1899B(c) and (d) of the Act indicate that data satisfying the eight measure domains in the IMPACT Act is the minimum data reporting requirement. The Secretary may specify additional measures and additional domains.
Section 1899B(e)(1) of the Act requires that the Secretary implement the quality, resource use, and other measures required under sections 1899B(c)(1) and (d)(1) of the Act in phases consisting of measure specification, data collection, and data analysis; the provision of feedback reports to PAC providers in accordance with section 1899B(f) of the Act; and public reporting of PAC providers' performance on such measures in accordance with section 1899B(g) of the Act. Section 1899B(e)(2) of the Act generally requires that each measure specified by the Secretary under section 1899B of the Act be National Quality Forum (NQF)-endorsed, but authorizes an exception under which the Secretary may select non-NQF-endorsed quality measures in the case of specified areas or medical topics determined appropriate by the Secretary for which a feasible or practical measure has not been endorsed by the NQF, as long as due consideration is given to measures that have been endorsed or adopted by a consensus organization identified by the Secretary. Section 1899B(e)(3) of the Act provides that the pre-rulemaking process required by section 1890A of the Act applies to quality, resource use, and other measures specified under sections 1899B(c)(1) and (d)(1) of the Act, but authorizes exceptions under which the Secretary may (1) use expedited procedures, such as ad hoc reviews, as necessary in the case of a measure required for data submissions during the 1-year period before the applicable specified application date, or (2) alternatively, waive section 1890A of the Act in the case of such a measure if applying section 1890A of the Act (including through the use of expedited procedures) would result in the inability of the Secretary to satisfy any deadline specified under section 1899B of the Act for the measure.
Section 1899B(f)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide confidential feedback reports to PAC providers on the performance of such PAC providers for quality, resource use, and other measures required under sections 1899B(c)(1) and (d)(1) of the Act beginning 1 year after the applicable specified application date.
Section 1899B(g) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish procedures for making available to the public information regarding the performance of individual PAC providers for quality, resource use, and other measures required under sections 1899B(c)(1) and (d)(1) beginning not later than 2 years after the applicable specified application date. The procedures must ensure, including through a process consistent with the process applied under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(viii)(VII) for similar purposes, that each PAC provider has the opportunity to review and submit corrections to the data and information that are to be made public for the PAC provider prior to such data being made public.
Section 1899B(h) of the Act sets out requirements for removing, suspending, or adding quality, resource use, and other measures required under sections 1899B(c)(1) and (d)(1) of the Act. In addition, section 1899B(j) of the Act requires the Secretary to allow for stakeholder input, such as through town halls, open door forums, and mailbox submissions, before the initial rulemaking process to implement section 1899B of the Act.
Section 2(c)(1) of the IMPACT Act amended section 1895 of the Act to address the payment consequences for HHAs for the additional data which HHAs are required to submit under section 1899B of the Act. These changes include the addition of a new section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v)(IV), which requires HHAs to submit the following additional data: (1) For the year beginning on the specified application date and each subsequent year, data on the quality, resource use, and other measures required under sections 1899B(c)(1) and (d)(1) of the Act; and (2) for 2019 and subsequent years, the standardized patient assessment data required under section 1899B(b)(1) of the Act. Such data must be submitted in the form and manner, and at the time, specified by the Secretary.
As noted, the IMPACT Act adds a new section 1899B of the Act that imposes new data reporting requirements for certain post-acute care (PAC) providers, including HHAs. Sections 1899B(c)(1) and 1899B(d)(1) of the Act collectively require that the Secretary specify quality measures and resource use and other measures with respect to certain domains not later than the specified application date that applies to each measure domain and PAC provider setting. Section 1899B(a)(2)(E) of the Act delineates the specified application dates for each measure domain and PAC provider. The IMPACT Act also amends other sections of the Act, including section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v), to require the Secretary to reduce the otherwise applicable PPS payment to a PAC provider that does not report the new data in a form and manner, and at a time, specified by the Secretary. For HHAs, amended section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act will require the Secretary to reduce the payment update for any HHA that does not satisfactorily submit the newly required data.
Under the current HH QRP, the general timeline and sequencing of measure implementation occurs as follows: Specification of measures; proposal and finalization of measures through notice-and-comment rulemaking; HHA submission of data on the adopted measures; analysis and processing of the submitted data; notification to HHAs regarding their quality reporting compliance for a particular year; consideration of any reconsideration requests; and imposition of a payment reduction in a particular year for failure to satisfactorily submit data for that year. Any payment reductions that are taken for a year begin approximately 1 year after the end of the data submission period for that year and approximately 2 years after we first adopt the measure.
To the extent that the IMPACT Act could be interpreted to shorten this timeline, so as to require us to reduce HH PPS payment for failure to satisfactorily submit data on a measure specified under section 1899B(c)(1) or (d)(1) of the IMPACT Act beginning with the same year as the specified application date for that measure, such a timeline would not be feasible. The current timeline discussed above reflects operational and other practical constraints, including the time needed to specify and adopt valid and reliable measures, collect the data, and determine whether a HHA has complied with our quality reporting requirements. It also takes into consideration our desire to give HHAs enough notice of new data reporting obligations so that they are prepared to timely start reporting data. Therefore, we intend to follow the same timing and sequence of events for measures specified under sections 1899B(c)(1) and (d)(1) of the Act that we currently follow for other measures specified under the HH QRP. We intend to specify each of these measures no later than the specified application dates set forth in section 1899B(a)(2)(E) of the Act and will adopt them consistent with the requirements in the Act and Administrative Procedure Act. To the extent that we finalize a proposal to adopt a measure for the HH QRP that satisfies an IMPACT Act measure domain, we intend to require HHAs to report data on the measure for the year that begins 2 years after the specified application date for that measure. Likewise, we intend to require HHAs to begin reporting any other data specifically required under the IMPACT Act for the year that begins 2 years after we adopt requirements that
Lastly, on April 1, 2014, the Congress passed the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. 113-93), which stated the Secretary may not adopt ICD-10 prior to October 1, 2015. On August 4, 2014, HHS published a final rule titled “Administrative Simplification: Change to the Compliance Date for the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS Medical Data Code Sets” (79 FR 45128), which announced October 1, 2015 as the new compliance date. The OASIS-C1 data item set had been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on February 6, 2014 and scheduled for implementation on October 1, 2014. We intended to use the OASIS-C1 to coincide with the original implementation date of the ICD-10. The approved OASIS-C1 included changes to accommodate coding of diagnoses using the ICD-10-CM coding set and other important stakeholder concerns such as updating clinical concepts, and revised item wording and response categories to improve item clarity. This version included five (5) data items that required the use of ICD-10 codes.
Since OASIS-C1 was revised to incorporate ICD-10 coding, it was not feasible to implement the OASIS-C1/ICD-10 version prior to October 1, 2015, when ICD-10 was scheduled to be implemented. Due to this delay, we had to ensure the collection and submission of OASIS data continued, until ICD-10 was implemented. Therefore, we made interim changes to the OASIS-C1 data item set to allow use with ICD-9 until ICD-10 was adopted. The OASIS-C1/ICD-9 version was submitted to OMB for approval until the OASIS-C1/ICD-10 version could be implemented. A 6-month emergency approval was granted on October 7, 2014 and CMS subsequently applied for an extension. The extension of the OASIS-C1/ICD-9 version was reapproved under OMB control number 0938-0760 with a current expiration date of March 31, 2018. It is important to note, that this version of the OASIS will be discontinued once the OASIS-C1/ICD-10 version is approved and implemented. In addition, to facilitate the reporting of OASIS data as it relates to the implementation of ICD-10 on October 1, 2015, we submitted a new request for approval to OMB for the OASIS-C1/ICD-10 version under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) process. We requested a new OMB control number for the proposed revised OASIS item as announced in the 30-day
We received multiple public comments pertaining to the general timeline and plan for implementation of the IMPACT Act, sequencing of measure implementation, and standardization of PAC assessment tools. The following is a summary of the comments we received on this topic and our responses.
In addition to implementing the IMPACT Act requirements, we will follow the strategy for identifying cross-cutting measures, timelines for data collection, and timelines for reporting as outlined in the IMPACT Act. As described more fully above, the IMPACT Act requires CMS to specify measures that relate to at least five stated quality domains and three stated resource use and other measure domains. The IMPACT Act also outlines timelines for data collection and timelines for reporting. We intend to adopt measures that comply with the IMPACT Act in a manner that is consistent with the sequence we follow in other quality reporting programs. We intend to follow all processes in place for adoption of measures including the MAP review and the notice and comment rulemaking process. In the selection and specification of measures, we employ a transparent process in which we seek input from stakeholders and national experts and engage in a process that allows for pre-rulemaking input on each measure, as required by section 1890A of the Act. This process is based on a private-public partnership, and it occurs via the MAP. The MAP is composed of multi-stakeholder groups convened by the NQF, our current contractor under section 1890 of the Act, to provide input on the selection of quality and efficiency measures described in section 1890(b)(7)(B). The NQF must convene these stakeholders and provide us with the stakeholders' input on the selection of such measures. We, in turn, must take this input into consideration in selecting such
We further note that we are committed to the principles surrounding public input as part of its measure development that occurs prior to rule making. As part of this measure development process, we seek input from the public on the measure specifications under development by CMS and our measure contractors. We have a designated Web page where we solicit public comment on measure constructs during measure development. This is a key component to how we develop and maintain quality measures, as outlined in the CMS Blueprint for Measures Management System. You can find more information about the CMS Blueprint for Measures Management System on the CMS Measure Management System Web page at:
We received a few comments requesting details pertaining to the timing of the development and implementation of the standardized patient assessment data, measures, data collection, and reporting. Commenters requested a detailed timeline and schedule that specifies planned changes to standardize assessment data, including dates and sequencing of changes. Specifically, one commenter stated that although the sequencing for the quality measures and specified application dates were provided in the proposed rule, the detail related to the timing of the standardized data appeared to have been left out. The commenter requested that this final rule provide such timeline and sequencing.
Regarding the timeline and sequencing surrounding the standardized patient assessment data, we interpret the commenters' concern to refer to the standardized data assessment domains listed within the Act under section 2(b) “Standardized patient assessment data”. As stated in the preamble to the CY 2016 HH PPS proposed rule, we intend to require HHAs to begin reporting data on the quality measures required under the IMPACT Act for the year that begins 2 years after we adopt requirements that govern the submission of that data.
We acknowledge the unique constraints home health agencies face in monitoring patient falls. We are in the process of standardizing a quality measure that assesses one or more falls with a major injury, rather than just a measure assessing if a fall occurred. In the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, FY 2016 IRF PPS final rule and FY 2016 SNF PPS final rule, we finalized an application of the quality measure, the Percent of Residents Experiencing One or More Falls with Major Injury (Long Stay) measure (NQF #0674). This application of the quality measure assesses falls resulting in major injuries only, satisfying the domain in the IMPACT Act, the Incidence of Major Falls. A TEP convened by our measure development contractor provided input on the technical specifications of the application of the quality measure, the Percent of Residents Experiencing One or More Falls with Major Injury (Long Stay) (NQF #0674), including the feasibility of implementing the measure across PAC settings, including home health care. The TEP was supportive of the implementation of this measure across PAC settings and was also supportive of our efforts to standardize this measure for cross-setting development. We have taken steps to standardize the numerator, denominator, and other facets of the quality measure across all PAC settings. As part of best clinical practice, the HHA should take steps to mitigate falls with major injury, especially since such falls are considered to be “never events” as they relate to healthcare acquired conditions.
Finally, we appreciate the commenter's concern that home health staff are not present 24 hours, 7 days a week and may not be able to track falls as they occur.
We strive to promote high quality and efficiency in the delivery of health care to the beneficiaries we serve. Performance improvement leading to the highest quality health care requires continuous evaluation to identify and address performance gaps and reduce the unintended consequences that may arise in treating a large, vulnerable, and aging population. Quality reporting programs, coupled with public reporting of quality information, are critical to the advancement of health care quality improvement efforts.
We seek to adopt measures for the HH QRP that promote better, safer, and more efficient care. Valid, reliable, relevant quality measures are fundamental to the effectiveness of our quality reporting programs. Therefore, selection of quality measures is a priority for CMS in all of its quality reporting programs.
The measures selected will address the measure domains as specified in the IMPACT Act and align with the
• Better Care: Improve the overall quality of care by making healthcare more patient-centered, reliable, accessible, and safe.
• Healthy People, Healthy Communities: Improve the health of the U.S. population by supporting proven interventions to address behavioral, social, and environmental determinants of health in addition to delivering higher-quality care.
• Affordable Care: Reduce the cost of quality healthcare for individuals, families, employers, and government.
In addition, our measure selection activities for the HH QRP take into consideration input we receive from the MAP. Input from the MAP is located on the MAP PAC LTC Programmatic Deliverable—Final Report Web page at:
We initiated an Ad Hoc MAP process for the review of the measures under consideration for implementation in preparation of the measures for adoption into the HH QRP that we proposed through this fiscal year's rule, in order to begin implementing such measures by 2017. We included under the List of Measures under Consideration (MUC List) measures that the Secretary must make available to the public, as part of the pre-rulemaking process, as described in section 1890A(a)(2) of the Act. The MAP Off-Cycle Measures under Consideration for PAC-LTC Settings can be accessed on the National Quality Forum Web site at:
To meet the first specified application date applicable to HHAs under section 1899B(a)(2)(E) of the Act, which is January 1, 2017, we focused on measures that:
• Correspond to a measure domain in sections 1899B(c)(1) or (d)(1) of the Act and are setting-agnostic: For example falls with major injury and the incidence of pressure ulcers;
• Are currently adopted for 1 or more of our PAC quality reporting programs, are already either NQF-endorsed and in use or finalized for use, or already previewed by the Measure Applications Partnership (MAP) with support;
• Minimize added burden on HHAs;
• Minimize or avoid, to the extent feasible, revisions to the existing items in assessment tools currently in use (for example, the OASIS); and
• Where possible, avoid duplication of existing assessment items.
As discussed in section V.A. of this final rule, section 1899B(j) of the Act requires that we allow for stakeholder input, such as through town halls, open door forums, and mailbox submissions, before the initial rulemaking process to implement section 1899B. To meet this requirement, we provided the following opportunities for stakeholder input: (1) We convened a Technical Expert Panel (TEP) that included stakeholder experts and patient representatives on February 3, 2015; (2) we provided two separate listening sessions on February 10 and March 24, 2015; (3) we sought public input during the February 2015 ad hoc MAP process regarding the measures under consideration for IMPACT Act domains; (4) we sought public comment as part of our measure maintenance work; and (5) we implemented a public mail box for the submission of comments in January 2015 located at
In the absence of NQF endorsement on measures for the home health (HH) setting, or measures that are not fully supported by the MAP for the HH QRP, we intend to propose for adoption measures that most closely align with the national priorities discussed above and for which the MAP supports the measure concept. Further discussion as to the importance and high-priority status of these measures in the HH setting is included under each quality measure in this final rule. In addition, for measures not endorsed by the NQF, we have sought, to the extent practicable, to adopt measures that have been endorsed or adopted by a national consensus organization, recommended by multi-stakeholder organizations, and/or developed with the input of providers, purchasers/payers, and other stakeholders.
In the CY 2014 HH PPS final rule, (78 FR 72256-72320), we finalized a proposal to add two claims-based measures to the HH QRP, and stated that we would begin reporting the data from these measures to HHAs beginning in CY 2014. These claims based measures are: (1) Rehospitalization during the first 30 days of HH; and (2) Emergency Department Use without Hospital Readmission during the first 30 days of HH. In an effort to align with other updates to Home Health Compare, including the transition to quarterly provider preview reports, we made the decision to delay the reporting of data from these measures until July 2015 (
(a) We proposed one standardized cross-setting new measure for CY 2016 to meet the requirements of the IMPACT Act. The proposed quality measure addressing the domain of skin integrity and changes in skin integrity is the National Quality Forum (NQF)-endorsed measure: Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers That Are New or Worsened (Short Stay) (NQF #0678) (
The IMPACT Act requires the specification of a quality measure to address skin integrity and changes in skin integrity in the home health setting by January 1, 2017. We proposed the implementation of quality measure NQF #0678, Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay) in the HH QRP as a cross-setting quality measure to meet the requirements of the IMPACT Act for the CY 2018 payment determination and subsequent years. This measure reports the percent of patients with Stage 2 through 4 pressure
Pressure ulcers are high-volume in post-acute care settings and high-cost adverse events. According to the 2014 Prevention and Treatment Guidelines published by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance, pressure ulcer care is estimated to cost approximately $11 billion annually, and between $500 and $70,000 per individual pressure ulcer.
The IMPACT Act requires the specification of quality measures that are harmonized across PAC settings. This requirement is consistent with the NQF Steering Committee report, which stated that to understand the impact of pressure ulcers across settings, quality measures addressing prevention, incidence, and prevalence of pressure ulcers must be harmonized and aligned.
A TEP convened by our measure development contractor provided input on the technical specifications of this quality measure, including the feasibility of implementing the measure across PAC settings. The TEP was supportive of the implementation of this measure across PAC settings and supported CMS's efforts to standardize this measure for cross-setting development. Additionally, the NQF MAP met on February 9, 2015 and February 27, 2015 and provided input to CMS. The MAP supported the use of NQF #0678, Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay) in the HH QRP as a cross-setting quality measure implemented under the IMPACT Act. More information about the MAPs recommendations for this measure on the National Quality Forum Web site at:
We proposed that data for the standardized quality measure would be collected using the OASIS-C1 with submission through the Quality Improvement and Evaluation System (QIES) Assessment Submission and Processing (ASAP) system. HHAs began submitting data for the OASIS items used to calculate NQF #0678, the Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers That Are New or Worsened (Short Stay), as part of the Home Health Quality Initiative to assess the number of new or worsened pressure ulcers in January 2015. By building on the existing reporting and submission infrastructure for HHAs, we intend to minimize the administrative burden related to data collection and submission for this measure under the HH QRP. For more information on HH reporting using the QIES ASAP system, refer to OASIS User Manual Web page at:
Data collected through the OASIS-C1 would be used to calculate this quality measure. Data items in the OASIS-C1 include M1308 (Current Number of Unhealed Pressure Ulcers at Each Stage or Unstageable) and M1309 (Worsening in Pressure Ulcer Status Since SOC/ROC). Data collected through the OASIS-C1 would be used for risk adjustment of this measure. We
The specifications and data items for NQF #0678, the Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay), are available in the downloads section of the Home Health Quality Measures Web page at:
As part of our ongoing measure development efforts, we considered a future update to the numerator of the quality measure NQF #0678, Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay). This update would hold providers accountable for the development of unstageable pressure ulcers and suspected deep tissue injuries (sDTIs). Under this proposed change the numerator of the quality measure would be updated to include unstageable pressure ulcers, including sDTIs that are new/developed while the patient is receiving home health care, as well as Stage 1 or 2 pressure ulcers that become unstageable due to slough or eschar (indicating progression to a full thickness [that is, stage 3 or 4] pressure ulcer) after admission. This would be consistent with the specifications of the “New and Worsened Pressure Ulcer” measure for HH patients presented to the MAP on the 2014 MUC list. We did not propose the implementation of this change (that is, including sDTIs and unstageable pressure ulcers in the numerator) in the HH QRP, but solicited public feedback on this potential area of measure development.
Our measure development contractor convened a cross-setting pressure ulcer TEP that strongly recommended that CMS hold providers accountable for the development of new unstageable pressure ulcers and sDTIs by including these pressure ulcers in the numerator of the quality measure. Although the TEP acknowledged that unstageable pressure ulcers and sDTIs cannot and should not be assigned a numeric stage, panel members recommended that these be included in the numerator of NQF #0678, the Percent of Residents, or Patients with Pressure Ulcers That Are New or Worsened (Short Stay), as a new pressure ulcer if developed during a home health episode. The TEP also recommended that a Stage 1 or 2 pressure ulcer that becomes unstageable due to slough or eschar should be considered worsened because the presence of slough or eschar indicates a full thickness (equivalent to Stage 3 or 4) wound.
In addition, we also considered whether body mass index (BMI) should be used as a covariate for risk-adjusting NQF #0678 in the home health setting, as is done in other post-acute care settings. We invited public feedback to inform our direction to include unstageable pressure ulcers and sDTIs in the numerator of the quality measure NQF #0678 Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay), as well as on the possible collection of height and weight data for risk-adjustment, as part of our future measure development efforts.
We invited public comment on our proposal to adopt NQF #0678 Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay) for the HH QRP to fulfill the requirements of the IMPACT Act for CY 2018 HH payment determination and subsequent years. The following is a summary of the comments received and our responses.
This proposed quality measure underwent recent review as part of its measure maintenance by CMS's measure development contractor. Under Technical Expert Panel review, which included national experts and members of a various professional wound organizations such as the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP), the current staging was not adjusted. We confirm our commitment to ongoing monitoring and re-evaluation of the risk models for all applicable outcome measures.
While we appreciate these comments and the importance of the role that sociodemographic status plays in the care of patients, we continue to have concerns about holding providers to different standards for the outcomes of their patients of low sociodemographic status because we do not want to mask potential disparities or minimize incentives to improve the outcomes of disadvantaged populations. We routinely monitor the impact of sociodemographic status on facilities' results on our measures.
NQF is currently undertaking a 2-year trial period in which new measures and measures undergoing maintenance review will be assessed to determine if risk-adjusting for sociodemographic factors is appropriate for each measure. For 2 years, NQF will conduct a trial of a temporary policy change that will allow inclusion of sociodemographic factors in the risk-adjustment approach for some performance measures. At the conclusion of the trial, NQF will determine whether to make this policy change permanent. Measure developers must submit information such as analyses and interpretations as well as performance scores with and without sociodemographic factors in the risk adjustment model.
Furthermore, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) is conducting research to examine the impact of socioeconomic status on quality measures, resource use, and other measures under the Medicare program as directed by the IMPACT Act. We will closely examine the findings of these reports and related Secretarial recommendations and consider how they apply to our quality programs at such time as they are available.
Several commenters expressed concerns about the situations in which providers are unable to collect accurate height and weight data in the home care setting safely, including situations such as, but not limited to, bedbound patients who are unable to stand on scales or whose self-reported height may be invalid due to memory deficits. Commenters additionally cited the lack of appropriate equipment to obtain this information in the home, including scales and Hoyer lifts for patients who cannot transfer. An additional commenter recommended that CMS add an option box to the new OASIS items to allow coding for those patients who cannot be weighed. Finally, one commenter requested clarification of “base weight” and the expectation for recording a weight that is measured during the visit versus a weight which could be reported by the patient when they are weighed in their home or based a recent healthcare provider appointment or hospitalization.
Low body mass index, which is derived from a patient's height and weight, is a known correlate of developing pressure ulcers. We recognize that there will be instances in which obtaining height and weight cannot occur, and coding response options will be available in order to indicate when such data cannot be obtained. We intend to issue specific guidance through the OASIS manual on obtaining these data, including a definition of “base weight”. We will also offer support through training, Open Door Forums, and other communication mechanisms.
In response to the commenter who suggested that physician offices and wound care centers obtain information related to height and weight, we will take this feedback into consideration in our ongoing maintenance of this proposed quality measure. In the cross-setting Technical Expert Panel held by our measure contractor, it was advised that we continue to use BMI, as collected, to indicate low body mass. We appreciate those comments that suggest enhancements to the measure's risk adjustment and we will take into consideration revisions to the measure and risk adjustment model in our ongoing maintenance of the measure.
We also identified four future, cross-setting measure constructs to potentially meet requirements of the IMPACT Act domains of: (1) All-condition risk-adjusted potentially preventable hospital readmission rates; (2) resource use, including total estimated Medicare spending per beneficiary; (3) discharge to community; and (4) medication reconciliation. These are shown in Table 19; we solicited public feedback to inform future measure development of these constructs as it relates to meeting the IMPACT Act requirements in these areas. These measures will be proposed in future rulemaking. The comments we received on this topic, with our responses, are summarized below.
We are working toward developing quality measures that assess areas of cognition and expression, recognizing that these quality topic domains are intrinsically linked or associated to the domain of function and cognitive function. In this measure development, we will take into consideration the variability of the PAC population and the appropriate risk-adjustment based on case-mix. In addition, we will take into consideration the suggestion that these measures operate as items of function and not exclusively as risk adjustors.
One commenter noted difficulty in providing meaningful comment on specific measures and measure constructs without further information. Regarding the measure “Percent of patients for whom any needed medication review actions were completed”, the commenter stated it is unclear from the table how one would determine whether a medication review action is needed for purposes of the measure. One commenter stated they need additional time to review more thoroughly, and plans to provide further feedback in the future.
Finally, one commenter recommended the inclusion of nurse practitioners in both the development and implementation of care plans based on quality indicators.
We appreciate the comments pertaining to the quality measure, the percent of patients for whom any needed medication review actions were completed. As we continue to develop and test this measure construct, we will make information about the measurement specifications available through posting specifications on our Web site and public comment periods. We recognize the need for transparency as we move forward to implement the IMPACT Act and will continue to engage stakeholders to ensure that our approach to measure development and implementation is communicated in an open and informative manner. We
Finally, we appreciate the important role played by nurse practitioners in patient health and home care outcomes, and encourage their participation through the variety of modes of stakeholder engagement noted above.
We will take all comments into consideration when developing and modifying assessment items and quality measures.
(b) We worked with our measure development and maintenance contractor to identify setting-specific measure concepts for future implementation in the HH QRP that align with or complement current measures and new measures to meet domains specified in the IMPACT Act. In identifying priority areas for future measure enhancement and development, we took into consideration results of environmental scans and resulting gap analysis for relevant home health quality measure constructs, along with input from numerous stakeholders, including the Measures Application Partnership (MAP), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), Technical Expert Panels, and national priorities, such as those established by the National Priorities Partnership, the HHS Strategic Plan, the National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Healthcare, and the CMS Quality Strategy. Based on input from stakeholders, CMS identified several high priority concept areas for future measure development in Table 20.
These measure concepts are under development, and details regarding measure definitions, data sources, data collection approaches, and timeline for implementation will be communicated in future rulemaking. We invited feedback about these seven high priority concept areas for future measure development. Public comments and our responses to comments are summarized below.
One commenter recommended four new quality measure constructs related to family caregivers. These included: Home health agency documentation of whether the beneficiary has a family caregiver; whether the care or discharge plan relies on the family caregiver to provide assistance; whether the family caregiver was provided supports they need as part of the plan after determining the need for such supports; and family caregiver experience of care. A few commenters recommended that CMS ensure new measures provide meaningful information and minimize burden.
One commenter urged CMS to provide clear and transparent explanations of measure specifications, and to provide as much information as possible about the measures proposed. One commenter recommended CMS only use measures after they have been tested in the home health setting and proved to have meaningful risk adjustment, as well as to be person-centered and realistic for patients' disease state. Two commenters recommended that CMS consider consolidating or removing measures prior to expanding the current set of measures to minimize administrative burden. One additionally noted that some existing measures could prove to be redundant or unnecessary when the IMPACT Act measures are implemented. A few commenters encouraged CMS to employ a transparent process for measure development that allows for multiple avenues for stakeholder input. One commenter welcomed the opportunity to work with CMS in the development of these measures and their specifications.
In response to the specific constructs listed in the Notice for Proposed Rule Making, one commenter said that a nutrition assessment conducted in the home setting, to support a nutritional assessment process measure, must comprise data elements that would not be included in a facility assessment, such as access to, and resources for food shopping. This commenter additionally recommended that new measures take into account patient-centered decisions and goals, including refusal of care, and balance these against provider accountability.
MedPAC expressed concern about the number of quality measures in the Medicare Program, specifically the number currently used in the HH QRP. MedPAC suggested that prior to expanding the current set of measures in the HH QRP, CMS should consider
With all new measure development, we are committed to assessing the burden and utility of proposed measures, through Technical Expert Panels, public comment periods and other opportunities for stakeholder input. In addition, we are planning to conduct field testing of new and existing OASIS items to assess their reliability, validity and relevance in the home health setting. This field testing will inform new measure development.
We agree with MedPAC, as well as other commenters, regarding the importance of a modest set of measures for the HH QRP and are re-evaluating the entire set to determine which measures are candidates for revision or retirement. CMS's measure contractor has convened a Technical Expert Panel of providers, caregiver representatives, and other clinical experts to aid in the re-evaluation process. This process has included: (1) Analysis of historical measure trends, as well as reliability, validity and variability; (2) a review of the scientific basis for the measure construct in the literature and guidelines; and (3) feedback on the value of the measures to providers and patients for assessing and improving quality. Ongoing evaluation of measures used in HH QRP will continue as measures intended to satisfy the IMPACT Act's specified domains are made operational.
In the current HH QRP outcome measures are risk-adjusted for a wide array of covariates and these risk models undergo periodic review and updating. We would extend this practice to new outcome measures as appropriate.
We recognize the unique circumstances of home health patients, who have greater control and potentially greater barriers for maintaining good nutritional status. Additionally, we recognize that home health patients may make decisions that align with their personal choice but may be at odds with high quality outcomes.
The HH conditions of participation (CoPs) at § 484.55(d) require that the comprehensive assessment must be updated and revised (including the administration of the OASIS) no less frequently than: (1) The last 5 days of every 60 days beginning with the start of care date, unless there is a beneficiary-elected transfer, significant change in condition, or discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day episode; (2) within 48 hours of the patient's return to the home from a hospital admission of 24-hours or more for any reason other than diagnostic tests; and (3) at discharge.
It is important to note that to calculate quality measures from OASIS data, there must be a complete quality episode, which requires both a Start of Care (initial assessment) or Resumption of Care OASIS assessment and a Transfer or Discharge OASIS assessment. Failure to submit sufficient OASIS assessments to allow calculation of quality measures, including transfer and discharge assessments, is a failure to comply with the CoPs.
HHAs do not need to submit OASIS data for those patients who are excluded from the OASIS submission requirements. As described in the December 23, 2005 Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Reporting Outcome and Assessment Information Set Data as Part of the Conditions of Participation for Home Health Agencies final rule (70 FR 76202), we defined the exclusion as those patients:
• Receiving only non-skilled services;
• For whom neither Medicare nor Medicaid is paying for HH care (patient receiving care under a Medicare or Medicaid Managed Care Plan are not excluded from the OASIS reporting requirement);
• Receiving pre- or post-partum services; or
• Under the age of 18 years.
As set forth in the CY 2008 HH PPS final rule (72 FR 49863), HHAs that become Medicare certified on or after May 31 of the preceding year are not subject to the OASIS quality reporting requirement nor any payment penalty for quality reporting purposes for the following year. For example, HHAs certified on or after May 31, 2014 are not subject to the 2 percentage point reduction to their market basket update for CY 2015. These exclusions only affect quality reporting requirements and do not affect the HHA's reporting responsibilities as announced in the December 23, 2005 final rule.
In the CY 2014 HH PPS Final rule (78 FR 72297), we finalized a proposal to consider OASIS assessments submitted by HHAs to CMS in compliance with HH CoPs and Conditions for Payment for episodes beginning on or after July 1, 2012, and before July 1, 2013 as fulfilling one portion of the quality reporting requirement for CY 2014.
In addition, we finalized a proposal to continue this pattern for each subsequent year beyond CY 2014. OASIS assessments submitted for episodes beginning on July 1 of the calendar year 2 years prior to the calendar year of the Annual Payment Update (APU) effective date and ending June 30 of the calendar year one year prior to the calendar year of the APU effective date, fulfill the OASIS portion of the HH QRP requirement.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v)(I) of the Act states that for 2007 and each subsequent year, the home health market basket percentage increase applicable under such clause for such year shall be reduced by 2 percentage points if a home health agency does not submit data to the Secretary in accordance with subclause (II) for such a year. This pay-for-reporting requirement was implemented on January 1, 2007. In the CY 2015 HH PPS Final rule (79 FR 38387), we finalized a proposal to define the quantity of OASIS assessments each HHA must submit to meet the pay-for-reporting requirement.
We believe that defining a more explicit performance requirement for the submission of OASIS data by HHAs would better meet the intent of the statutory requirement.
In the CY 2015 HH PPS Final rule (79 FR 38387), we reported information on a study performed by the Department of
In response to these requirements and the OIG report, we designed a pay-for-reporting performance system model that could accurately measure the level of an HHA's submission of OASIS data. The performance system is based on the principle that each HHA is expected to submit a minimum set of two matching assessments for each patient admitted to their agency. These matching assessments together create what is considered a quality episode of care, consisting ideally of a Start of Care (SOC) or Resumption of Care (ROC) assessment and a matching End of Care (EOC) assessment. However, it was determined that there are several scenarios that could meet this matching assessment requirement of the new pay-for-reporting performance requirement. These scenarios or quality assessments are defined as assessments that create a quality episode of care during the reporting period or could create a quality episode if the reporting period were expanded to an earlier reporting period or into the next reporting period.
Seven types of assessments submitted by an HHA fit this definition of a quality assessment. These are:
1. A Start of Care (SOC; M0100 = `01') or Resumption of Care (ROC; M0100 = `03') assessment that can be matched to an End of Care (EOC; M0100 = `06', `07', `08', or `09') assessment. These SOC/ROC assessments are the first assessment in the pair of assessments that create a standard quality of care episode describe in the previous paragraph.
2. An End of Care (EOC) assessment that can be matched to a Start of Care (SOC) or Resumption of Care (ROC) assessment. These EOC assessments are the second assessment in the pair of assessments that create a standard quality of care episode describe in the previous paragraph.
3. A SOC/ROC assessment that could begin an episode of care, but the assessment occurs in the last 60 days of the performance period. This is labeled as a Late SOC/ROC quality assessment. The assumption is that the EOC assessment will occur in the next reporting period.
4. An EOC assessment that could end an episode of care that began in the previous reporting period, (that is, an EOC that occurs in the first 60 days of the performance period). This is labeled as an Early EOC quality assessment. The assumption is that the matching SOC/ROC assessment occurred in the previous reporting period.
5. A SOC/ROC assessment that is followed by one or more follow-up assessments, the last of which occurs in the last 60 days of the performance period. This is labeled as an SOC/ROC Pseudo Episode quality assessment.
6. An EOC assessment is preceded by one or more follow-up assessments, the first of which occurs in the first 60 days of the performance period. This is labeled an EOC Pseudo Episode quality assessment.
7. A SOC/ROC assessment that is part of a known one-visit episode. This is labeled as a One-Visit episode quality assessment. This determination is made by consulting HH claims data.
SOC, ROC, and EOC assessments that do not meet any of these definitions are labeled as Non-Quality assessments. Follow-up assessments (that is, where the M0100 Reason for Assessment = `04' or `05') are considered Neutral assessments and do not count toward or against the pay-for-reporting performance requirement.
Compliance with this performance requirement can be measured through the use of an uncomplicated mathematical formula. This pay-for-reporting performance requirement metric has been titled as the “Quality Assessments Only” (QAO) formula because only those OASIS assessments that contribute, or could contribute, to creating a quality episode of care are included in the computation.
The formula based on this definition is as follows:
Our ultimate goal is to require all HHAs to achieve a pay-for-reporting performance requirement compliance rate of 90 percent or more, as calculated using the QAO metric illustrated above. In the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66074), we proposed implementing a pay-for-reporting performance requirement over a 3-year period. After consideration of the public comments received, we adopted as final our proposal to establish a pay-for-reporting performance requirement for assessments submitted on or after July 1, 2015 and before June 30, 2016 with appropriate start of care dates, HHAs must score at least 70 percent on the QAO metric of pay-for-reporting performance requirement or be subject to a 2 percentage point reduction to their market basket update for CY 2017.
HHAs have been statutorily required to report OASIS for a number of years and therefore should have many years of experience with the collection of OASIS data and transmission of this data to CMS. Given the length of time that HHAs have been mandated to report OASIS data and based on preliminary analyses that indicate that the majority of HHAs are already achieving the target goal of 90 percent on the QAO metric, we believe that HHAs would adapt quickly to the implementation of the pay-for-reporting performance requirement, if phased in over a 3-year period.
In the CY 2015 rule, we did not finalize a proposal to increase the reporting requirement in 10 percent increments over a 2-year period beginning July 1, 2016 until the maximum rate of 90 percent is reached. Instead, we proposed to analyze historical data to set the reporting requirements. To set the threshold for the 2nd year, we analyzed the most recently available data, from 2013 and 2014, to make a determination about what the pay-for-reporting performance requirement should be. Specifically, we reviewed OASIS data from this time period simulating the pay-for-reporting performance 70 percent submission requirement to determine the hypothetical performance of each HHA as if the pay-for-reporting performance requirement were in effect during the reporting period preceding its implementation. This analysis indicated a nominal increase of 10 percent each year would provide the greatest opportunity for successful implementation versus an increase of 20 percent from year 1 to year 2.
Based on this analysis, we proposed to set the performance threshold at 80 percent for the reporting period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. For the reporting period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 and thereafter, we proposed the performance threshold would be 90 percent.
We provided a report to each HHA of their hypothetical performance under the pay-for-reporting performance requirement during the 2014-2015 pre-implementation reporting period in June 2015. On January 1, 2015, the data submission process for OASIS converted from the current state-based OASIS submission system to a new national OASIS submission system known as the Assessment Submission and Processing (ASAP) System. On July 1, 2015, when the pay-for-reporting performance requirement of 70 percent went into effect, providers were required to submit their OASIS assessment data into the ASAP system. Successful submission of an OASIS assessment consist of the submission of the data into the ASAP system with a receipt of no “fatal error” messages. Error messages received during submission can be an indication of a problem that occurred during the submission process and could also be an indication that the OASIS assessment was rejected. Successful submission can be verified by ascertaining that the submitted assessment data resides in the national database after the assessment has met all of the quality standards for completeness and accuracy during the submission process. Should one or more OASIS assessments submitted by a HHA be rejected due to an IT/server issue caused by CMS, we may at our discretion, excuse the non-submission of OASIS data. We anticipate that such a scenario would rarely, if ever, occur. In the event that a HHA believes that they were unable to submit OASIS assessments due to an IT/server issue on the part of CMS, the HHA should be prepared to provide any documentation or proof available, which could demonstrate that no fault on their part contributed to the failure of the OASIS records to transmit to CMS.
The initial performance period for the pay-for-reporting performance requirement is July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Prior to and during this performance period, we have scheduled Open Door Forums and webinars to educate HHA personnel as needed about the pay-for-reporting performance requirement program and the pay-for- reporting performance QAO metric, and distributed individual provider preview reports. Additionally, OASIS Education Coordinators (OECs) have been trained to provide state-level instruction on this program and metric. We have posted a report, which provides a detailed explanation of the methodology for this pay-for-reporting QAO methodology. To view this report, go to the downloads section at:
We invited public comment on our proposal to implement an 80 percent Pay-for-Reporting Performance Requirement for Submission of OASIS Quality Data for Year 2 reporting period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 as described previously, for the HH QRP. Public comments and our responses to comments are summarized below.
Providers are required to submit their OASIS assessment data into the ASAP system. Successful submission of an OASIS assessment consists of the submission of the data into the ASAP system with a receipt of no fatal error messages. Error messages received during submission can be an indication of a problem that occurred during the submission process and could also be an indication that the OASIS assessment was rejected. Successful submission can be verified by ascertaining that the submitted assessment data resides in the national database after the assessment has met all of the quality standards for completeness and accuracy during the submission process.
As noted previously, should one or more OASIS assessments submitted by a HHA be rejected due to an IT/server issue caused by CMS, we may at our discretion, excuse the non-submission of OASIS data. We anticipate that such a scenario would rarely, if ever, occur. In the event that a HHA believes they were unable to submit OASIS
Patients receiving care under a Medicare or Medicaid managed care plan are not excluded from the OASIS reporting requirements, and HHAs are required to submit OASIS assessments for these patients. OASIS reporting is mandated for all Medicare beneficiaries (under 42 CFR 484.250(a), 484.225(i), and 484.55). The HH CoPs require that the HH Registered Nurse (RN) or qualified therapist perform an initial assessment within 48 hours of referral, within 48 hours of the patient's return home, or on the physician-ordered start of care date. The HH RN or qualified therapist must also complete a comprehensive assessment within 5 days from the start of care. During these assessments, the HH RN or qualified therapist must determine the patient's eligibility for the Medicare HH benefit, including homebound status (42 CFR 484.55(a)(1) and (b)). In addition, the requirement for OASIS reporting on Medicare and Medicaid Managed Care patients was established in a final rule titled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Reporting Outcome and Assessment Information Set Data as Part of the Conditions of Participation for Home Health Agencies Final Rule” dated December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76200), which stated the following:
“In the January 25, 1999, interim final rule with comment period (64 FR 3749), we generally mandated that all HHAs participating in Medicare and Medicaid (including managed care organizations providing home health services to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries) report their OASIS data to the database we established within each State via electronic transmission.”
We do not believe that there is more burden associated with the collection of OASIS assessment data for a Medicare Managed Care patient than there is for a HH patient that receives traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) benefits. The requirements for the HH RN or qualified therapist to perform an initial and comprehensive assessment and complete all required OASIS assessments is the same for all Medicare patients regardless of the type of Medicare or Medicaid benefits they receive. The completion of these activities is a condition of payment of both Medicare FFS and managed care claims.
We are committed to stakeholder education and as such conducted a Special Open Door forum on the QAO methodology and compliance rates on June 2, 2015; materials from this Special Open Door Forum, along with additional educational information, are available in the downloads section at:
In the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66031), we stated that the home health quality measures reporting requirements for Medicare-certified agencies includes the Home Health Care CAHPS® (HHCAHPS) Survey for the CY 2015 Annual Payment Update (APU). We are continuing to maintain the stated HHCAHPS data requirements for CY 2016 that were stated in CY 2015 and in previous rules, for the continuous monthly data collection and quarterly data submission of HHCAHPS data.
As part of the HHS Transparency Initiative, we implemented a process to measure and publicly report patient experiences with home health care, using a survey developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ's) Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) program and endorsed by the NQF in March 2009 (NQF Number 0517) and recently NQF re-endorsed in 2015. The HHCAHPS Survey is approved under OMB Control Number 0938-1066 through May 31, 2017. The HHCAHPS survey is part of a family of CAHPS® surveys that asks patients to report on and rate their experiences with health care. The Home Health Care CAHPS® (HHCAHPS) survey presents home health patients with a set of standardized questions about their home health care providers and about the quality of their home health care.
Prior to this survey, there was no national standard for collecting information about patient experiences that enabled valid comparisons across all HHAs. The history and development process for HHCAHPS has been described in previous rules and is also available on the official HHCAHPS Web site at:
Since April 2012, for public reporting purposes, we report five measures from the HHCAHPS Survey—three composite measures and two global ratings of care that are derived from the questions on the HHCAHPS survey. The publicly reported data are adjusted for differences in patient mix across HHAs. We update the HHCAHPS data on Home Health Compare on
• Patient care (Q9, Q16, Q19, and Q24);
• Communications between providers and patients (Q2, Q15, Q17, Q18, Q22, and Q23); and
• Specific care issues on medications, home safety, and pain (Q3, Q4, Q5, Q10, Q12, Q13, and Q14).
The two global ratings are the overall rating of care given by the HHA's care providers (Q20), and the patient's willingness to recommend the HHA to family and friends (Q25).
The HHCAHPS survey is currently available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and Vietnamese. The OMB number on these surveys is the same (0938-1066). All of these surveys are on the Home Health Care CAHPS® Web site,
All of the requirements about home health patient eligibility for the HHCAHPS survey and conversely, which home health patients are ineligible for the HHCAHPS survey are delineated and detailed in the
Home health patients are
• Are under the age of 18;
• Are deceased prior to the date the sample is pulled;
• Receive hospice care;
• Receive routine maternity care only;
•Are not considered survey eligible because the state in which the patient lives restricts release of patient information for a specific condition or illness that the patient has; or
• No Publicity patients, defined as patients who on their own initiative at their first encounter with the HHAs make it very clear that no one outside of the agencies can be advised of their patient status, and no one outside of the HHAs can contact them for any reason.
We stated in previous rules that Medicare-certified HHAs are required to contract with an approved HHCAHPS survey vendor. This requirement continues, and Medicare-certified agencies also must provide on a monthly basis a list of their patients served to their respective HHCAHPS survey vendors. Agencies are not allowed to influence at all how their patients respond to the HHCAHPS survey.
As previously required, HHCAHPS survey vendors are required to attend introductory and all update trainings conducted by CMS and the HHCAHPS Survey Coordination Team, as well as to pass a post-training certification test. We have approximately 30 approved HHCAHPS survey vendors. The list of approved HHCAHPS survey vendors is available at:
We stated in prior final rules that all approved HHCAHPS survey vendors are required to participate in HHCAHPS oversight activities to ensure compliance with HHCAHPS protocols, guidelines, and survey requirements. The purpose of the oversight activities is to ensure that approved HHCAHPS survey vendors follow the
• Organizational Background and Staff Experience;
• Work Plan;
• Sampling Plan;
• Survey Implementation Plan;
• Data Security, Confidentiality and Privacy Plan; and
• Questionnaire Attachments
As part of the oversight activities, the HHCAHPS Survey Coordination Team conducts on-site visits to all approved HHCAHPS survey vendors. The purpose of the site visits is to allow the HHCAHPS Survey Coordination Team to observe the entire HHCAHPS Survey implementation process, from the sampling stage through file preparation and submission, as well as to assess data security and storage. The HHCAHPS Survey Coordination Team reviews the HHCAHPS survey vendor's survey systems, and assesses administration protocols based on the
• Survey management and data systems;
• Printing and mailing materials and facilities;
• Telephone call center facilities;
• Data receipt, entry and storage facilities; and
• Written documentation of survey processes.
After the site visits, HHCAHPS survey vendors are given a defined time period in which to correct any identified issues and provide follow-up documentation of corrections for review. HHCAHPS survey vendors are subject to follow-up site visits on an as-needed basis.
In the CY 2013 HH PPS final rule (77 FR 67094, 67164), we codified the current guideline that all approved HHCAHPS survey vendors fully comply with all HHCAHPS oversight activities. We included this survey requirement at § 484.250(c)(3).
In the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66031), we stated that for the CY 2016 APU, we would require continued monthly HHCAHPS data collection and reporting for four quarters. The data collection period for the CY 2016 APU includes the second quarter 2014 through the first quarter 2015 (the months of April 2014 through March 2015). Although these dates are past, we wished to state them in this rule so that HHAs are again reminded of what months constituted the requirements for the CY 2016 APU.
For the 2016 APU, we required that all HHAs that had fewer than 60 HHCAHPS-eligible unduplicated or unique patients in the period of April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014 are exempted from the HHCAHPS data collection and submission requirements for the CY 2016 APU, upon completion of the CY 2016 HHCAHPS Participation Exemption Request form, and upon CMS verification of the HHA patient counts. Agencies with fewer than 60 HHCAHPS-eligible, unduplicated or unique patients in the period of April 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014, were required to submit their patient counts on the HHCAHPS Participation Exemption Request form for the CY 2016 APU posted on
We automatically exempt HHAs receiving Medicare certification after the period in which HHAs do their patient counts. HHAs receiving Medicare certification on or after April 1, 2014 were exempt from the HHCAHPS reporting requirement for the CY 2016 APU. These newly-certified HHAs did not need to complete the HHCAHPS Participation Exemption Form for the CY 2016 APU.
For the CY 2017 APU, we require continued monthly HHCAHPS data collection and reporting for four quarters. The data collection period for the CY 2017 APU includes the second quarter 2015 through the first quarter 2016 (the months of April 2015 through March 2016). HHAs are required to submit their HHCAHPS data files to the HHCAHPS Data Center for the second quarter 2015 by 11:59 p.m., EST on October 15, 2015; for the third quarter 2015 by 11:59 p.m., EST on January 21, 2016; for the fourth quarter 2015 by 11:59 p.m., EST on April 21, 2016; and for the first quarter 2016 by 11:59 p.m., EST on July 21, 2016. These deadlines are firm; no exceptions are permitted.
For the CY 2017 APU, we require that all HHAs with fewer than 60 HHCAHPS-eligible unduplicated or unique patients in the period of April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015 are exempt from the HHCAHPS data collection and submission requirements for the CY 2017 APU, upon completion of the CY 2017 HHCAHPS Participation Exemption Request form, and upon
We automatically exempt HHAs receiving Medicare certification after the period in which HHAs do their patient count. HHAs receiving Medicare-certification on or after April 1, 2015 are exempt from the HHCAHPS reporting requirement for the CY 2017 APU. These newly-certified HHAs do not need to complete the HHCAHPS Participation Exemption Request Form for the CY 2017 APU.
For the CY 2018 APU, we require continued monthly HHCAHPS data collection and reporting for four quarters. The data collection period for the CY 2018 APU includes the second quarter 2016 through the first quarter 2017 (the months of April 2016 through March 2017). HHAs will be required to submit their HHCAHPS data files to the HHCAHPS Data Center for the second quarter 2016 by 11:59 p.m., EST on October 20, 2016; for the third quarter 2016 by 11:59 p.m., EST on January 19, 2017; for the fourth quarter 2016 by 11:59 p.m., EST on April 20, 2017; and for the first quarter 2017 by 11:59 p.m., EST on July 20, 2017. These deadlines are firm; no exceptions will be permitted.
For the CY 2018 APU, we require that all HHAs with fewer than 60 HHCAHPS-eligible unduplicated or unique patients in the period of April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 are exempt from the HHCAHPS data collection and submission requirements for the CY 2018 APU, upon completion of the CY 2018 HHCAHPS Participation Exemption Request form, and upon CMS verification of the HHA patient counts. Agencies with fewer than 60 HHCAHPS-eligible, unduplicated or unique patients in the period of April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 are required to submit their patient counts on the CY 2018 HHCAHPS Participation Exemption Request form posted on
We automatically exempt HHAs receiving Medicare certification after the period in which HHAs do their patient count. HHAs receiving Medicare-certification on or after April 1, 2016 are exempt from the HHCAHPS reporting requirement for the CY 2018 APU. These newly-certified HHAs do not need to complete the HHCAHPS Participation Exemption Request Form for the CY 2018 APU.
HHAs should monitor their respective HHCAHPS survey vendors to ensure that vendors submit their HHCAHPS data on time, by accessing their HHCAHPS Data Submission Reports on
We continue HHCAHPS oversight activities as finalized in the previous rules. In the CY 2013 HH PPS final rule (77 FR 6704, 67164), we codified the current guideline that all approved HHCAHPS survey vendors must fully comply with all HHCAHPS oversight activities. We included this survey requirement at § 484.250(c)(3).
We continue the OASIS and HHCAHPS reconsiderations and appeals process that we have finalized and that we have used for prior all periods cited in the previous rules, and utilized in the CY 2012 to CY 2016 APU determinations. We have described the HHCAHPS reconsiderations and appeals process requirements in the APU Notification Letter that we send to the affected HHAs annually in September. HHAs have 30 days from their receipt of the letter informing them that they did not meet the HHCAHPS requirements to reply to CMS with documentation that supports their requests for reconsideration of the annual payment update to CMS. It is important that the affected HHAs send in comprehensive information in their reconsideration letter/package because CMS will not contact the affected HHAs to request additional information or to clarify incomplete or inconclusive information. If clear evidence to support a finding of compliance is not present, then the 2 percent reduction in the annual payment update will be upheld. If clear evidence of compliance is present, then the 2 percent reduction for the APU will be reversed. CMS notifies affected HHAs by December 31 of the decisions that affects payments in the annual year beginning on January 1. If CMS determines to uphold the 2 percent reduction for the annual payment update, the affected HHA may further appeal the 2 percent reduction via the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB) appeals process, which is described in the December letter.
The following is a summary of the comments that we received regarding HHCAHPS:
We did not propose any changes to the participation requirements, or to the requirements pertaining to the implementation of the Home Health CAHPS® Survey (HHCAHPS). We only updated the information to reflect the dates in the future APU years. We again strongly encourage HHAs to keep up-to-date about the HHCAHPS by regularly viewing the official Web site for the HHCAHPS at
Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v)(III) of the Act and section 1899B(f) of the IMPACT Act states the Secretary shall establish procedures for making data submitted under subclause (II) available to the public. Such procedures shall ensure that a home health agency has the opportunity to review the data that is to be made public for the agency prior to such data being made public. We recognize that public reporting of quality data is a vital component of a robust quality reporting program and are fully committed to ensuring that the data made available to the public be meaningful and that comparing performance across home health agencies requires that measures be constructed from data collected in a standardized and uniform manner. We also recognize the need to ensure that each home health agency has the opportunity to review the data before publication. Medicare home health regulations, as codified at § 484.250(a), requires HHAs to submit OASIS assessments and Home Health Care Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey® (HHCAHPS) data to meet the quality reporting requirements of section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act.
In addition, beginning April 1, 2015 HHAs began to receive Provider Preview Reports (for all Process Measures and Outcome Measures) on a quarterly, rather than annual, basis. The opportunity for providers to review their data and to submit corrections prior to public reporting aligns with the other quality reporting programs and the requirement for provider review under the IMPACT Act. We provide quality measure data to HHAs via the Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER reports), which are available through the CMS Health Care Quality Improvement and Evaluation System (QIES).
As part of our ongoing efforts to make healthcare more transparent, affordable, and accountable, the HH QRP has developed a CMS Compare Web site for home health agencies, which identifies home health providers based on the areas they serve. Consumers can search for all Medicare-certified home health providers that serve their city or ZIP code and then find the agencies offering the types of services they need. A subset of the HH quality measures has been publicly reported on the Home Health Compare (HH Compare) Web site since 2003. The selected measures that are made available to the public can be viewed on the HH Compare Web site located at
The Affordable Care Act calls for transparent, easily understood information on provider quality to be publicly reported and made widely available. To provide home health care consumers with a summary of existing quality measures in an accessible format, we published a star rating based on the quality of care measures for home health agencies on Home Health Compare starting in July 2015. This is part of our plan to adopt star ratings across all Medicare.gov Compare Web sites. Star ratings are currently publicly displayed on Nursing Home Compare, Physician Compare, Hospital Compare, Dialysis Facility Compare, and the Medicare Advantage Plan Finder.
The Quality of Patient Care star rating methodology assigns each home health agency a rating between one (1) and five (5) stars, using half stars for adjustment and reporting. All Medicare-certified home health agencies are eligible to receive a Quality of Patient Care star rating providing that they have quality data reported on at least 5 out of the 9 quality measures that are included in the calculation.
Home health agencies will continue to have prepublication access to their agency's quality data, which enables each agency to know how it is performing before public posting of the data on the Compare Web site. Starting in April 2015, HHAs are receiving quarterly preview reports showing their Quality of Patient Care star rating and how it was derived well before public posting. HHAs have several weeks to review and provide feedback.
The Quality of Patient Care star ratings methodology was developed through a transparent process the included multiple opportunities for stakeholder input, which was subsequently the basis for refinements to the methodology. An initial proposed methodology for calculating the Quality of Patient Care star ratings was posted on the CMS.gov Web site in December 2014. CMS then held two Special Open Door Forums (SODFs) on December 17, 2014 and February 5, 2015 to present the proposed methodology and solicit input. At each SODF, stakeholders provided immediate input, and were invited to submit additional comments via the Quality of Patient Care star ratings Help Desk mailbox
Additional information regarding the Quality of Patient Care star rating is posted on the star ratings Web page at:
Summaries of public comments and our responses to comments regarding the Public Display of Home Health Quality Data for the HH QRP are provided below:
While this rule contains information collection requirements, this rule does not add new, nor revise any of the existing information collection requirements, or burden estimate. The information collection requirements discussed in this rule for the OASIS-C1 data item set had been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on February 6, 2014 and scheduled for implementation on October 1, 2014. The extension of OASIS-C1/ICD-9 version was reapproved under OMB control number 0938-0760 with a current expiration date of March 31, 2018. This version of the OASIS will be discontinued once the OASIS-C1/ICD-10 version is approved and implemented. In addition, to facilitate the reporting of OASIS data as it relates to the implementation of ICD-10 on October 1, 2015, CMS submitted a new request for approval to OMB for the OASIS-C1/ICD-10 version under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) process. The proposed revised OASIS item was announced in the 30-day
Section 1895(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish a HH PPS for all costs of HH services paid under Medicare. In addition, section 1895(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires (1) the computation of a standard prospective payment amount include all costs for HH services covered and paid for on a reasonable cost basis and that such amounts be initially based on the most recent audited cost report data available to the Secretary, and (2) the standardized prospective payment amount be adjusted to account for the effects of case-mix and wage levels among HHAs. Section 1895(b)(3)(B) of the Act addresses the annual update to the standard prospective payment amounts by the HH applicable percentage increase. Section 1895(b)(4) of the Act governs the payment computation. Sections 1895(b)(4)(A)(i) and (b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act require the standard prospective payment amount to be adjusted for case-mix and geographic differences in wage levels. Section 1895(b)(4)(B) of the Act requires the establishment of appropriate case-mix adjustment factors for significant variation in costs among different units of services. Lastly, section 1895(b)(4)(C) of the Act requires the establishment of wage adjustment factors that reflect the relative level of wages, and wage-related costs applicable to HH services furnished in a geographic area compared to the applicable national average level.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act provides the Secretary with the authority to implement adjustments to the standard prospective payment amount (or amounts) for subsequent years to eliminate the effect of changes in aggregate payments during a previous year or years that was the result of changes in the coding or classification of different units of services that do not reflect real changes in case-mix. Section 1895(b)(5) of the Act provides the Secretary with the option to make changes to the payment amount otherwise paid in the case of outliers because of unusual variations in the type or amount of medically necessary care. Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act requires HHAs to submit data for purposes of measuring health care quality, and links the quality data submission to the annual applicable percentage increase.
Section 421(a) of the MMA requires that HH services furnished in a rural area, for episodes and visits ending on or after April 1, 2010, and before January 1, 2016, receive an increase of 3 percent of the payment amount otherwise made under section 1895 of the Act. Section 210 of the MACRA amended section 421(a) of the MMA to extend the 3 percent increase to the payment amounts for serviced furnished in rural areas for episodes and visits ending before January 1, 2018.
Section 3131(a) of the Affordable Care Act mandates that starting in CY 2014, the Secretary must apply an adjustment to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate and other amounts applicable under section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i)(III) of the Act to reflect factors such as changes in the number of visits in an episode, the mix of services in an episode, the level of intensity of services in an episode, the average cost of providing care per episode, and other relevant factors. In addition, section 3131(a) of the Affordable Care Act mandates that rebasing must be phased-in over a 4-year period in equal increments, not to exceed 3.5 percent of the amount (or amounts) as of the date of enactment (2010) under section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i)(III) of the Act, and be fully implemented in CY 2017.
The HHVBP Model will apply a payment adjustment based on an HHA's performance on quality measures to test the effects on quality and costs of care. This HHVBP Model was developed based on the experiences we gained from the implementation of the Home Health Pay-for-Performance (HHPP) demonstration as well as the successful implementation of the HVBP program. The model design was also developed from the public comments received on the discussion of a HHVBP model being considered in the CY 2015 HH PPS proposed and final rules. Value-based purchasing programs have also been included in the President's budget for most provider types, including Home Health.
We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive Order
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The net transfer impacts related to the changes in payments under the HH PPS for CY 2016 are estimated to be −$260 million. The savings impacts related to the HHVBP model are estimated at a total projected 5-year gross savings of $380 million assuming a very conservative savings estimate of a 6 percent annual reduction in hospitalizations and a 1.0 percent annual reduction in SNF admissions. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The update set forth in this rule applies to Medicare payments under HH PPS in CY 2016. Accordingly, the following analysis describes the impact in CY 2016 only. We estimate that the net impact of the policies in this rule is approximately $260 million in decreased payments to HHAs in CY 2016. We applied a wage index budget neutrality factor and a case-mix weights budget neutrality factor to the rates as discussed in section III.C.3 of this final rule. Therefore, the estimated impact of the 2016 wage index and the recalibration of the case-mix weights for 2016 is zero. The −$260 million impact reflects the distributional effects of the 1.9 percent HH payment update percentage ($345 million increase), the effects of the third year of the four-year phase-in of the rebasing adjustments to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment amount, the national per-visit payment rates, and the NRS conversion factor for an impact of −2.4 percent ($440 million decrease), and the effects of the −0.97 percent adjustment to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate to account for nominal case-mix growth ($165 million decrease). The $260 million in decreased payments is reflected in the last column of the first row in Table 21 as a 1.4 percent decrease in expenditures when comparing CY 2015 payments to estimated CY 2016 payments.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $7.5 million to $38.5 million in any one year. For the purposes of the RFA, we estimate that almost all HHAs are small entities as that term is used in the RFA. Individuals and states are not included in the definition of a small entity. The economic impact assessment is based on estimated Medicare payments (revenues) and HHS's practice in interpreting the RFA is to consider effects economically “significant” only if greater than 5 percent of providers reach a threshold of 3 to 5 percent or more of total revenue or total costs. The majority of HHAs' visits are Medicare-paid visits and therefore the majority of HHAs' revenue consists of Medicare payments. Based on our analysis, we conclude that the policies finalized in this rule will result in an estimated total impact of 3 to 5 percent or more on Medicare revenue for greater than 5 percent of HHAs. Therefore, the Secretary has determined that this HH PPS final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Further detail is presented in Table 24, by HHA type and location.
With regards to options for regulatory relief, we note that in the CY 2014 HH PPS final rule we finalized rebasing adjustments to the national, standardized 60-day episode rate, non-routine supplies (NRS) conversion factor, and the national per-visit payment rates for each year, 2014 through 2017 as described in section II.C and III.C.3 of this final rule. Since the rebasing adjustments are mandated by section 3131(a) of the Affordable Care Act, we cannot offer HHAs relief from the rebasing adjustments for CY 2016. For the 1.4 percent reduction to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment amount for CY 2016 described in section III.B.2 of this final rule, we believe it is appropriate to reduce the national, standardized 60-day episode payment amount to account for the estimated increase in nominal case-mix in order to move towards more accurate payment for the delivery of home health services where payments better align with the costs of providing such services. In the alternatives considered section for the CY 2016 HH PPS proposed rule (80 FR 39839), we note that we considered reducing the 60-day episode rate in CY 2016 only to account for nominal case-mix growth between CY 2012 and CY 2014. However, we instead proposed to reduce the 60-day episode rate over a two-year period (CY 2016 and CY 2017) to account for estimated nominal case-mix growth between CY 2012 and CY 2014 in order to lessen the impact on HHAs in a given year. As discussed in III.B.2 of this final rule, we are implementing a reduction of 0.97 percent to the 60-day episode rate in each of the next three calendar years (CY 2016 through CY 2018.
Executive Order 13563 specifies, to the extent practicable, agencies should assess the costs of cumulative regulations. However, given potential utilization pattern changes, wage index changes, changes to the market basket forecasts, and unknowns regarding future policy changes, we believe it is neither practicable nor appropriate to forecast the cumulative impact of the rebasing adjustments on Medicare payments to HHAs for future years at this time. Changes to the Medicare program may continue to be made as a result of the Affordable Care Act, or new statutory provisions. Although these changes may not be specific to the HH PPS, the nature of the Medicare program is such that the changes may interact, and the complexity of the interaction of these changes will make it difficult to predict accurately the full scope of the impact upon HHAs for future years beyond CY 2016. We note that the rebasing adjustments to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate and the national per-visit rates are capped at the statutory limit of 3.5 percent of the CY 2010 amounts (as described in the preamble in section II.C. of this final rule) for each year, 2014 through 2017. The NRS rebasing adjustment will be −2.82 percent in each year, 2014 through 2017.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a RIA if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b)
To test the impact of upside and downside value-based payment adjustments, beginning in calendar year 2018 and in each succeeding calendar year through calendar year 2022, the HHVBP Model will adjust the final claim payment amount for a home health agency for each episode in a calendar year by an amount equal to the applicable percent. For purposes of this final rule, we have limited our analysis of the economic impacts to the value-based incentive payment adjustments. Under the model design, the incentive payment adjustments will be limited to the total payment reductions to home health agencies included in the model and would be no less than the total amount available for value-based incentive payment adjustment. Overall, the distributive impact of this rule is estimated at $380 million for CY 2018-2022. Therefore, this rule is economically significant and thus a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. The model will test the effect on quality and costs of care by applying payment adjustments based on HHAs' performance on quality measures. This rule was developed based on extensive research and experience with value-based purchasing models.
Guidance issued by the Department of Health and Human Services interpreting the Regulatory Flexibility Act considers the effects economically `significant' only if greater than 5-percent of providers reach a threshold of 3- to 5-percent or more of total revenue or total costs. Among the over 1900 HHAs in the selected states that would be expected to be included in the HHVBP Model, we estimate that the maximum percent payment adjustment resulting from this rule will only be greater than minus 3 percent for 10 percent of the HHAs included in the model (using the 8 percent maximum payment adjustment threshold to be applied in CY2022). As a result, only 2-percent of all HHA providers nationally would be significantly impacted, falling well below the RFA threshold. In addition, only HHAs that are impacted with lower payments are those providers that provide the poorest quality which is the main tenet of the model. This falls well below the threshold for economic significance established by HHS for requiring a more detailed impact assessment under the RFA. Thus, we are not preparing an analysis under the RFA because the Secretary has determined that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural HHAs. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we have identified less than 5 percent of HHAs included in the selected states that primarily serve beneficiaries that reside in rural areas (greater than 50 percent of beneficiaries served). We are not preparing an analysis under section 1102(b) of the Act because the Secretary has determined that the HHVBP Model would not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural HHAs.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2015, that threshold is approximately $144 million. This rule will have no consequential effect on state, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on state or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This final rule sets forth updates for CY 2016 to the HH PPS rates contained in the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66032 through 66118). The impact analysis of this final rule presents the estimated expenditure effects of policy changes finalized in this rule. We use the latest data and best analysis available, but we do not make adjustments for future changes in such variables as number of visits or case-mix.
This analysis incorporates the latest estimates of growth in service use and payments under the Medicare HH benefit, based primarily on Medicare claims data from 2014. We note that certain events may combine to limit the scope or accuracy of our impact analysis, because such an analysis is future-oriented and, thus, susceptible to errors resulting from other changes in the impact time period assessed. Some examples of such possible events are newly-legislated general Medicare program funding changes made by the Congress, or changes specifically related to HHAs. In addition, changes to the Medicare program may continue to be made as a result of the Affordable Care Act, or new statutory provisions. Although these changes may not be specific to the HH PPS, the nature of the Medicare program is such that the changes may interact, and the complexity of the interaction of these changes could make it difficult to predict accurately the full scope of the impact upon HHAs.
Table 24 represents how HHA revenues are likely to be affected by the policy changes finalized in this rule. For this analysis, we used an analytic file with linked CY 2014 OASIS assessments and HH claims data for dates of service that ended on or before December 31, 2014 (as of June 30, 2015). The first column of Table 24 classifies HHAs according to a number of characteristics including provider type, geographic region, and urban and rural locations. The second column shows the number of facilities in the impact analysis. The third column shows the payment effects of the CY 2016 wage index. The fourth column shows the payment effects of the CY 2016 case-mix weights. The fifth column shows the effects the 0.97 percent reduction to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment amount to account for nominal case-mix growth. The sixth column shows the effects of the rebasing adjustments to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate, the national per-visit payment rates, and NRS conversion factor. For CY 2016, the average impact for all HHAs due to the effects of rebasing is an estimated 2.4 percent decrease in payments. The seventh column shows the effects of the CY 2016 home health payment update percentage (
The last column shows the combined effects of all the policies finalized in this rule. Overall, it is projected that aggregate payments in CY 2016 will decrease by 1.4 percent. As illustrated in Table 24, the combined effects of all of the changes vary by specific types of providers and by location. We note that some individual HHAs within the same group may experience different impacts on payments than others due to the distributional impact of the CY 2016 wage index, the extent to which HHAs had episodes in case-mix groups where the case-mix weight decreased for CY 2016 relative to CY 2015, the percentage of total HH PPS payments that were subject to the low-utilization payment adjustment (LUPA) or paid as outlier payments, and the degree of Medicare utilization.
Table 22 displays our analysis of the distribution of possible payment adjustments at the 3-percent, 5-percent, 6-percent, 7-percent, and 8-percent rates that are being used in the model based on 2013-2014 data, providing information on the estimated impact of this rule. We note that this impact analysis is based on the aggregate value of all 9 states identified in section IV.C.2. of this final rule by applying the state selection methodology.
Table 23 displays our analysis of the distribution of possible payment adjustments based on 2013-2014 data, providing information on the estimated impact of this final rule. We note that this impact analysis is based on the aggregate value of all nine (9) states (identified in section IV.C.2. of this rule) by applying the state selection methodology.
All Medicare-certified HHAs that provide services in Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Florida, Washington, Arizona, Iowa, Nebraska, and Tennessee will be required to compete in this model.
Value-based incentive payment adjustments for the estimated 1,900 plus HHAs in the selected states that will compete in the HHVBP Model are stratified by the size as defined in section F. For example, Arizona has 31 HHAs that do not provide services to enough beneficiaries to be required to complete HHCAHPS surveys and therefore are considered to be in the state's smaller-volume cohort under the model. Using 2013-2014 data and the highest payment adjustment of 5-percent (as applied in CY 2019), based on ten (10) process and outcome measures currently available on Home Health Compare, the smaller-volume HHAs in Arizona would have a mean payment adjustment of positive 0.64 percent. Only 10-percent of home health agencies would be subject to downward payment adjustments of more than minus 3.3 percent (−3.3 percent).
The next columns provide the distribution of scores by percentile; we see that the value-based incentive percentage payments for home health agencies in Arizona range from −3.3 percent at the 10th percentile to +5.0 percent at the 90th percentile, while the value-based incentive payment at the 50th percentile is 0.56 percent.
The smaller-volume HHA cohorts table identifies that some consideration will have to be made for MD, WA, and TN where there are too few HHAs in the smaller-volume cohort and will be included in the larger-volume cohort without being measured on HHCAHPS.
Table 24 provides the payment adjustment distribution based on proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries, average case mix (using HCC scores), proportion that reside in rural areas, as well as HHA organizational status. Besides the observation that higher proportion of dually-eligible beneficiaries serviced is related to better performance, the payment adjustment distribution is consistent with respect to these four categories.
The TPS score and the payment methodology at the state and size level were calculated so that each home health agency's payment adjustment was calculated as it will be in the model. Hence, the values of each separate analysis in the tables are representative of what they would be if the baseline year was 2013 and the performance year was 2014.
There were 1,931 HHAs in the nine selected states out of 1,991 HHAs that were found in the HHA data sources that yielded a sufficient number of measures to receive a payment adjustment in the model. It is expected that a certain number of HHAs will not be subject to the payment adjustment because they may be servicing too small of a population to report on an adequate number of measures to calculate a TPS.
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
Table 26 provides our best estimate of the decrease in Medicare payments under the proposed HHVBP Model.
In conclusion, we estimate that the net impact of the HH PPS policies in this rule is a decrease of 1.4 percent, or $260 million, in Medicare payments to HHAs for CY 2016. The $260 million decrease in estimated payments to HHAs for CY 2016 reflects the effects of the 1.9 percent CY 2016 HH payment update percentage ($345 million increase), a 0.9 percent decrease in payments due to the 0.97 percent reduction to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rate in CY 2016 to account for nominal case-mix growth from 2012 through 2014 ($165 million decrease), and a 2.4 percent decrease in payments due to the third year of the 4-year phase-in of the rebasing adjustments required by section 3131(a) of the Affordable Care Act ($440 million decrease). This analysis, together with the remainder of this preamble, provides the final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
In conclusion, we estimate there will be no net impact (to include either a net increase or reduction in payments) in this final rule in Medicare payments to HHAs competing in the HHVBP Model for CY 2016. However, the overall economic impact of the HHVBP Model provision is an estimated $380 million in total savings from a reduction in unnecessary hospitalizations and SNF usage as a result of greater quality improvements in the home health industry over the life of the HHVBP Model. The financial estimates were based on the analysis of hospital, home health and skilled nursing facility claims data from nine states using the most recent 2014 Medicare claims data. A study published in 2002 by the Journal of the American Geriatric Society (JAGS), “Improving patient outcomes of home health care: Findings from two demonstration trials of outcome-based quality improvement,” formed the basis for CMMI's projections.
Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a final rule that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. We have reviewed this final rule under the threshold criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it will not have substantial direct effects on the rights, roles, and responsibilities of states, local or tribal governments.
Health facilities, Medicare.
Emergency medical services, Health facilities, Health professions, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Health facilities, Health professions, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Discharge with goals met and/or no expectation of a return to home health care and the patient returns to home health care during the 60-day episode.
Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
Secs 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395(hh)) unless otherwise indicated.
(d)
(2) The PEP adjustment will not apply in situations of transfers among HHAs of common ownership. Those situations will be considered services provided under arrangement on behalf of the originating HHA by the receiving HHA with the common ownership interest for the balance of the 60-day episode. The common ownership exception to the transfer PEP adjustment does not apply if the beneficiary moves to a different MSA or Non-MSA during the 60-day episode before the transfer to the receiving HHA. The transferring HHA in situations of common ownership not only serves as a billing agent, but must also exercise professional responsibility over the arranged-for services in order for services provided under arrangements to be paid.
(3) If the intervening event warrants a new 60-day episode payment and a new physician certification and a new plan of care, the initial HHA receives a partial episode payment adjustment reflecting the length of time the patient remained under its care. A partial episode payment adjustment is determined in accordance with § 484.235.
(e)
(a) * * *
(3) For CY 2011, the adjustment is 3.79 percent.
(4) For CY 2012, the adjustment is 3.79 percent.
(5) For CY 2013, the adjustment is 1.32 percent.
(6) For CY 2016, CY 2017, and CY 2018, the adjustment is 0.97 percent in each year.
(a) CMS updates the unadjusted national 60-day episode payment rate on a fiscal year basis (as defined in section 1895(b)(1)(B) of the Act).
(b) For 2007 and subsequent calendar years, in accordance with section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act, in the case of a home health agency that submits home health quality data, as specified by the Secretary, the unadjusted national prospective 60-day episode rate is equal to the rate for the previous calendar year increased by the applicable home health market basket index amount.
(c) For 2007 and subsequent calendar years, in accordance with section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act, in the case of a home health agency that does not submit home health quality data, as specified by the Secretary, the unadjusted national prospective 60-day episode rate is equal to the rate for the previous calendar year increased by the applicable home health market basket index amount minus 2 percentage points. Any reduction of the percentage change will apply only to the calendar year involved and will not be taken into account in computing the prospective payment amount for a subsequent calendar year.
(b) The outlier threshold for each case-mix group is the episode payment amount for that group, or the PEP adjustment amount for the episode, plus a fixed dollar loss amount that is the same for all case-mix groups.
(e) The fixed dollar loss amount and the loss sharing proportion are chosen so that the estimated total outlier payment is no more than 2.5 percent of total payment under home health PPS.
(f) The total amount of outlier payments to a specific home health agency for a year may not exceed an amount equal to 10 percent of the total
This subpart is established under sections 1102, 1115A, and 1871 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1315a), which authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations to operate the Medicare program and test innovative payment and service delivery models to improve coordination, quality, and efficiency of health care services furnished under Title XVIII.
As used in this subpart—
(1) For CY 2018, 3-percent.
(2) For CY 2019, 5-percent.
(3) For CY 2020, 6-percent.
(4) For CY 2021, 7-percent.
(5) For CY 2022, 8-percent.
(1) That has or have a current Medicare certification; and,
(2) Is or are being paid by CMS for home health care delivered within any of the states specified in § 484.310.
(a)
(b)
(a) Competing home health agencies will be evaluated using a starter set of quality measures.
(b) Competing home health agencies in selected states will be required to report information on New Measures, as determined appropriate by the Secretary, to CMS in the form, manner, and at a time specified by the Secretary.
(c) Competing home health agencies in selected states will be required to collect and report such information as the Secretary determines is necessary for purposes of monitoring and evaluating the HHVBP Model under section 1115A(b)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1315a).
A competing home health agency's Total Performance Score for a model year is calculated as follows:
(a) CMS will award points to the competing home health agency for performance on each of the applicable measures in the starter set, excluding the New Measures.
(b) CMS will award points to the competing home health agency for reporting on each of the New Measures in the starter set, worth up to ten percent of the Total Performance Score.
(c) CMS will sum all points awarded for each applicable measure excluding the New Measures in the starter set, weighted equally at the individual measure level, to calculate a value worth 90-percent of the Total Performance Score.
(d) The sum of the points awarded to a competing HHA for each applicable measure in the starter set and the points awarded to a competing HHA for reporting data on each New Measure is the competing HHA's Total Performance Score for the calendar year.
CMS will determine a payment adjustment up to the maximum applicable percentage, upward or downward, under the HHVBP Model for each competing home health agency based on the agency's Total Performance Score using a linear exchange function. Payment adjustments made under the HHVBP Model will be calculated as a percentage of otherwise-applicable payments for home health services provided under section 1895 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Federal Maritime Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Maritime Commission amends its rules governing the licensing, financial responsibility requirements and duties of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries. The rule adapts to changing industry conditions, improves regulatory effectiveness, improves transparency, streamlines processes and reduces regulatory burdens.
This rule is effective December 9, 2015, except for the amendments to § 515.14(c) and (d), which are effective December 9, 2016.
Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001, Tel.: (202) 523-5725, Email:
On October 10, 2014, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR 61544 (October 10, 2014) significantly amending its regulations governing Ocean Transportation Intermediaries (OTIs) for the first time since it promulgated implementing regulations under the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105-258, 112 Stat. 1902 (OSRA). The proposed rule was published following an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) published in May 2013. 78 FR 32946 (May 31, 2013). The Commission dropped a number of rulemaking proposals in response to earlier ANPR comments.
Changes proposed to the Commission's current rules include: Adding requirements to renew OTI licenses every three years; providing for simple on-line renewals at the Commission's Web site; providing a single on-line location where the status of an NVOCC's compliance with the Commission's regulations can be quickly verified; and establishing an expedited hearing process for license denials, revocations or suspensions while continuing to provide applicants and licensees due process and the ability to appeal adverse decisions to the full Commission.
The Commission received 25 comments (including three late-filed comments) on the proposed rule from North American Logistics, Inc. (North American); Trans-World Shipping Service, Inc. (Trans-World); J.W. Allen & Co. Inc. (J.W. Allen); Customs Clearance Int. Inc. (Customs Clearance); Kuehne & Nagel Inc. (K&N); John S. Connor, Inc. (John S. Connor); New Direx, Inc. (New Direx); National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, Inc. (NCBFAA); W.R. Zanes & Co. of La., Inc. (W.R. Zanes); Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA); Pride International, Inc. (Pride); World Shipping Council (WSC); John S. James Co.; Pacific Coast Council of Brokers & Freight Forwarders Association, Inc. (PCC);
The proposed rule removes several definitions that are no longer relevant to the Commission's regulatory activities, including “ocean freight broker” (§ 515.2(n)), “brokerage” (§ 515.2(d)) and “small shipment” (§ 515.2(u)). NCBFAA and NYNJFFF&BA agree that these terms are no longer necessary.
Section 515.2(n) modifies the definition of “person” to conform to the definition of “person” in 1 U.S.C. 1, but also specifically includes “limited liability companies.” The Commission retains the current language that entities covered are those “existing under or authorized by the laws of the United States or of a foreign country.” NCBFAA acknowledges the expansion of the definition to cover new forms of corporate structure to be a beneficial change.
NCBFAA, TIA, NYNJFFF&BA and UPS are concerned that the revision of the term “principal” in § 515.2(o) renders it capable of a much broader application than the current definition, imposing duties on Ocean Freight Forwarders (OFFs) to entities with whom such forwarders have no contractual relationship. This concern arises even though the Commission indicated that the revised definition is not intended to change its meaning or scope.
The current definition provides, in pertinent part, that the term “refers to the shipper, consignee, seller, or purchaser of property, who employs the services of a licensed freight forwarder to facilitate the ocean transportation of such property.” UPS asserts that the words “who employs the services of” makes it clear that OFFs are the agents of those that employ them and not agents to those that do not. The revised definition would have eliminated clarifying text that OFF principals are limited to those who employ licensed forwarders. The Commission finds these concerns have merit and revises the definition to substantially restore the current definition as follows:
The definitions of “freight forwarding services” (§ 515.2(h)) and “non-vessel-operating common carrier services” (§ 515.2(k)) are revised to better reflect OTIs' current practices and terminology. For example, “freight forwarding services” are revised to include preparation of “export documents, including required `electronic export information,' ” rather than the legacy paper-based shipper export declarations (§ 515.2(h)(2)). OFF and NVOCC services are both revised to include preparation of ocean common carrier and NVOCC bills of lading “or other shipping documents” (§§ 515.2(h)(5) and 515.2(k)(4)). The change acknowledges that OTI services cover preparation of various forms of
NCBFAA favorably opines that the revisions to “freight forwarding services” and “non-vessel-operating common carrier services” make the definitions more consistent with the services that OTIs currently provide. However, it also indicates that the definitions could be expanded further to include “the filing of shipment manifest data with relevant government agencies.” Inasmuch as these definitions provide that services “may include, but are not limited to” those listed, it would appear that the addition of NCBFAA's suggested text is not necessary.
The term “qualifying individual” (QI) is added and defines QI as an individual who meets the Shipping Act's experience and character requirements. The QI must meet those requirements at the time a license is issued and must thereafter maintain the necessary character. The OTI must timely replace the QI, as provided by the Commission's rules, when the designated QI ceases to act as the QI, whether by resignation, retirement or death.
Commenting on the definition, NCBFAA opines that the Commission's review process does not adequately address a qualifying individual's competence. NCBFAA asserts that QIs need to have skill sets to comply with Shipping Act, United States export/import requirements and other statutes that apply to international shipping. NCBFAA suggests that the Commission consider adding affirmative competency requirements for QIs as NCBFAA has done with respect to its Certified Export Specialist program.
The QI's three years of OTI experience in the U.S. oceanborne foreign trades provides a foundation for ensuring that QIs are exposed to and gain working knowledge of the Shipping Act and Commission regulations, as well as with other regulations and statutes that apply in the U.S. trades. The NCBFAA's comment that the competence of QIs is not as high as the association would prefer has serious implications for the nation's security and transport policy objectives. Its suggestions for improvements are welcome, however, they are well beyond the scope of the current proposed rulemaking proceeding. The details, procedures, cost to the agency and associated fees to the OTI applicants must be more fully developed by NCBFAA, and made subject to full and open public comment in order to be further considered by the Commission.
The requirement that “separately incorporated branch offices” must be licensed as an OTI is deleted as unnecessary. All separately incorporated entities that perform OTI services for which they assume responsibility for the transportation remain subject to the requirements that they be licensed and otherwise comply with the financial responsibility obligations of part 515.
The Commission also revises § 515.3 to provide that a “registered NVOCC” (terminology replacing the use of “unlicensed NVOCC”) must use licensed OTIs as their agents in the United States with respect to OTI services performed in the U.S. The section is also conformed to provide that only licensed OTIs may provide OTI services in the United States to registered NVOCCs.
NCBFAA comments that these are positive changes as they better reflect the compliance obligations of the parties. TIA, however, expresses a concern that the Commission attempts to regulate the activities of OTI agents contrary to the decision in
TIA asserts that the provision in § 515.3 whereby only licensed OTIs may provide OTI services in the United States for registered NVOCCs in effect regulates the OTI agent. TIA also comments that there is no corresponding definition of “OTI services” in the regulations that would delineate the § 515.3 requirement. TIA questions the Commission's authority to require registered NVOCCs to use only licensed OTIs in the United States.
Section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 provides that “[a] person in the United States may not act as an ocean transportation intermediary unless the person holds an ocean transportation intermediary's license issued by the Federal Maritime Commission.” 46 U.S.C. 40901. This section imposes the licensing requirement on NVOCCs “in the United States” but not on foreign-based NVOCCs that are not in “in the United States.”
The Commission addressed its authority to regulate unlicensed foreign-based NVOCCs' operations “in the United States” in 1999 as a necessary element of its rulemaking implementing OSRA. The Commission stated:
In that rulemaking, after considering the comments on approaches to meet Congress' instructions (including comments from NCBFAA and American International Freight Association and Transportation Intermediaries Association (AIFA/TIA)), the Commission adopted the current language found in § 515.3, which provides in pertinent part:
The Commission expressed its view that the rule presented foreign-based NVOCCs with the option of obtaining a license (and obtaining a bond at the level applicable to NVOCCs in the U.S.) or operating through independently licensed OTI agents after obtaining a bond in the higher amount established for such foreign-based NVOCCs.
The Commission exercised the discretion that Congress envisioned and promulgated a rule that recognized that all foreign-based NVOCCs would not obtain a license but ensured that unlicensed NVOCCs that were not “in the United States” would not conduct business as if they were resident without first meeting the requirements for a license. The requirement that unlicensed foreign-based NVOCCs use licensed OTIs as their agents in the United States is necessary to make sure that the distinction created by Congress would not be thwarted. Consistent with the court's proscription in
Section 515.4(b)—Branch Offices. The rule eliminates the regulatory burden associated with procuring and maintaining additional financial responsibility to cover an OTI's unincorporated branch offices by deleting the reference to obtaining additional financial responsibility currently set out in § 515.4(b)(ii). A corresponding change is made to § 515.21, deleting the current text of paragraph 515.21(a)(4). The rule also deletes § 515.4(d), which refers to ocean freight brokers, as it is no longer needed. Comments by OTIs and the associations were uniformly in support of the elimination of the additional $10,000 bonding requirements for each unincorporated branch office.
The NYNJFFF&BA opposes the provision in § 515.4(b) that an OTI “shall be fully responsible for the acts and omissions of any of its employees and agents that are performed in connection with the conduct of such licensee's business.” NYNJFFF&BA is concerned that the provision will expose OTIs to all manners of liability for acts of their agents, including gross negligence and personal injury.
The most significant change in this provision from that adopted in 1999, is the substitution of “shall be fully responsible” in place of “shall be held strictly responsible.” The change is intended to clarify that the provision places full responsibility on OTIs for the acts and omissions of their employees and agents for actions that violate the Shipping Act or Commission regulations. The current rule's reference to strict responsibility is imprecise and its elimination avoids any inference that a statutory or regulatory regime relating to strict liability applies. The Commission considers the provision as clarified does not open OTIs to liability beyond the scope of the Shipping Act and, accordingly, no change to the rule as proposed is necessary.
Section 515.5(b) is modified to provide that all license applications and registration forms, including renewal forms, must be filed with the Commission electronically unless a waiver request to file on paper is granted by the Director of the Bureau of Certification and Licensing. Electronic filing anticipates the implementation of on-line filing and processing of all applications and forms. OTIs will also be able to view their on-line applications, reflecting the changes that they make to the application, including license renewal changes, by logging into the Commission's system.
Section 515.5(c)(1) has been added and requires OTIs to pay applicable fees within ten (10) business days of the time of submission of such applications and forms. The Commission has developed the ability to receive on-line payments by credit or debit cards via Pay.gov and the Automated Clearing House system. These developments enable OTIs to pay fees in a timely and convenient manner, consistent within the 10 day window.
Section 515.5(c)(2) is added to make it easier for OTI applicants and licensees to quickly find the fees that apply to filings they make, by setting out all fees applicable under part 515 (
NCBFAA supports the changes to § 515.5 providing for the electronic filing of applications and the relocation of all fee amounts. It notes that electronic filing of applications should be no burden to prospective OTIs as virtually all data is already submitted electronically to carriers, banks and government agencies. NYNJFFF&BA also supports the electronic filing provisions and the requirement that fees be paid within 10 days of submission of an application. NYNJFFF&BA also suggested that the OTI be able to check its profile on-line. As indicated above OTIs will be able to check their profile at any time by logging on via the Commission's Web site.
Except for the addition of a sentence clarifying the experience required of a foreign-based NVOCC that elects to become licensed, § 515.11(a)(1) remains unchanged inasmuch as revisions put forward in the ANPR have been deleted. Foreign-based NVOCCs seeking to become licensed must acquire the requisite experience with respect to shipments transported in the United States oceanborne foreign commerce, but may acquire that experience while resident in a foreign country with respect to shipments moving in the U.S. trades. The added sentence reflects the standard that has been applied by the Commission since 1999.
While NCBFAA recognizes the Commission's inclusion of the agency's standard that has been applied to foreign-based NVOCC experience over the years, it would like the Commission to explain its rationale for doing so. NCBFAA largely restates its view that the vetting of QIs does not presently determine the QI's “knowledge of or competency with the Shipping Act, the Commission's regulations or the myriad of export control and other regulations that affect the function of any OTI and questions whether the requisite three years' U.S. experience differs substantively from OTI working experience gained in non-U.S. trades.
As indicated with respect to NCBFAA's comments on the definition of qualifying individual, the Commission considers that the OTI experience acquired by QIs in the U.S. trades provides them with exposure to and working knowledge of U.S. laws, regulations, and practices, including those of the Shipping Act and Commission regulations. The QIs of foreign-based OTIs also gain experience with U.S. laws and regulations as a result of working on shipments in the U.S. trades. In 1999, the Commission made it possible for foreign-based OTIs to seek OTI licenses by promulgating its current rules permitting the necessary U.S. trade experience to be acquired abroad. The Commission will continue to require U.S. trade experience for QIs of foreign-based OTIs that apply for licenses.
The new content in § 515.11(a)(2) makes it clear that the Commission may consider all information relevant to the determination of whether the applicant has the necessary character to render OTI services. Types of information that may be considered include, but are not limited to: Violations of any shipping laws or statutes relating to the import, export or transport of merchandise in international trade; operating as an OTI without a license or registration; state and federal felonies and misdemeanors; voluntary and non-voluntary bankruptcies not discharged; outstanding tax liens; court and administrative judgments and proceedings; non-compliance with immigration status requirements; and denial, revocation, or suspension of a Transportation Worker Identification Credential or of a customs broker's license. The types of information with respect to character, now set out in § 515.11(a)(2), reflect the information that the Commission's Bureau of Certification and Licensing (BCL) has considered and applied during the 15 years since the current regulations went into effect. This section better informs applicants of potential issues that should be addressed in filing their
NYNJFFF&BA expresses its concern that the information that may be considered by the Commission in assessing an applicant's character could lead to the denial of a license in circumstances that have nothing to do with character. As examples, the association points to the possibility of erroneously filed tax liens and questions the relevance of a suspension or revocation of a TWIC card or customs broker license.
As noted, the factors set out in § 515.11(a)(2) are the types of information that have been considered for years in Commission licensing determinations. The scope of information considered by the Commission does not negatively affect an applicant's character assessment unless there arises a serious and relevant concern for licensing as evidenced by the information obtained. The Commission will continue to refer to the types of information listed but, as it has in the past, will not peremptorily commence the process for denying, revoking or suspending a license without first seeking clarification and an opportunity for response from the applicant. In sum, the listing will result in greater transparency, both facilitating applicants' preparation of their applications and the Commission's consideration of them.
Section 515.12(c) memorializes a process pursuant to which BCL shall close applications where applicants fail to timely provide information or documents needed for review. The date for submission of such information will be provided by BCL to the applicant. The Commission will apply § 515.12(c) reasonably and flexibly. Once the date has been established for a response by BCL, the applicant should keep BCL fully informed as to the reasons for any response delays in order to avoid closure of its application. Applicants whose applications are closed may reapply at any time.
NCBFAA comments favorably on the inclusion, in § 515.12(c), of the application closure process that will be followed by the Commission with respect to applicants that do not timely provide information or documents. NCBFAA indicates its favorable experience with the practice of the BCL flexibly extending deadlines for submission of application information and documents.
Section 515.14(c) requires licenses to be renewed every three (3) years. New OTI licenses will be issued for an initial three-year period and renewed every three years thereafter. Existing licenses will be phased-in over a three-year period in order to facilitate smooth and timely processing by Commission staff. Moreover, the renewal requirement will be implemented only when the necessary programming of the Commission's computer systems has been completed and tested so that on-line processing can be reliably activated. To this end, the renewal requirements of § 515.14(c) and (d) will become effective, and implementation of the on-line renewal process will commence, December 9, 2016. All other provisions of the final rule adopted in this rulemaking proceeding become effective December 9, 2015.
The Commission will issue a notice on its Web site of the schedule by which currently licensed OTIs will have to renew their licenses. It is anticipated that current licensees will be grouped for renewal by ranges of license numbers in order to facilitate smooth processing.
OTIs and the OTI associations that filed comments to the proposed rule object generally to the requirement that licenses be renewed every three years. The comments assert that license renewals are not needed to obtain up-to-date information because the Commission's regulations already require that certain changes in a licensee's organization be submitted to the Commission for prior approval (§ 515.20(a)) and certain other changes in material facts be submitted within 30 days of such changes (§ 515.20(e)). As an alternative, NCBFAA suggests that the Commission vigorously enforce its existing rules by assessing penalties against OTIs that fail to update their information. NYNJFFF&BA suggests that the data the Commission presented in the proposed rule regarding failures of OTIs to update information under the current requirements is insufficient to support the need for a license renewal requirement applicable to all OTIs. NYNJFFF&BA suggests that the Commission issue a one-time request to all OTIs for the essential corporate information that the proposed rule's renewal process seeks on a triennial basis in order to determine the current level of unreported non-compliance. NCBFAA also comments that there is no indication in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that a vast majority of OTIs fail to comply with the current regulations.
As described in the proposed rule, BCL has 30 to 40 inquiries concerning the identity of a licensee's QI, officers, owners, or business affiliations at any given time, notwithstanding current requirements that such information be updated within 30 days of a change. Both BCL and the Commission's Bureau of Enforcement have experienced frequent failures over a two year period to timely report: changes of business address, QI retirements/resignations, failure to notify/increase OTI's surety bond, and operations under new trade names. This data included NVOCCs and Ocean Freight Forwarders (OFFs), large and small.
As indicated in the NOPR, the incidence of noncompliance by OTIs in timely reporting changes material to their license and bond revealed while dealing with the Commission on other matters has ranged between 14 and 24 percent. At the low end, that would translate into over 1,000 OTIs not having complied with the Commission's current updating requirements. Without implementing the renewal requirement, the Commission simply cannot adequately know which OTIs are not complying at any given time, nor adequately meet its statutory obligations to maintain effective oversight of the conduct and financial responsibility of the OTI industry, both in the U.S. and abroad. The need for the renewal process provided for in the rule is a reflection of the Commission's experience since 1999.
The suggestion that the Commission should instead pursue enforcement proceedings against offenders misses the fact that the Commission has worked diligently to bring the OTI industry into compliance without such proceedings and seeks to continue doing so once the renewal process is in place. It is unnecessary to abandon the Commission's current process in favor of one where enforcement proceedings seeking penalties are commenced each time the Commission discovers a failure to update information.
Neither will the renewal process, as configured, place a great burden on the OTI industry. This is borne out by the Commission's impact analysis required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Renewal does not involve OTIs having to re-qualify to continue its license to operate, nor does the process result in the expiration of a license beyond which date an OTI cannot operate.
NCBFAA, North American, J.W. Allen, John S. Connor, New Direx, Pride, C J International, Cargo-Link, Vanguard, Mohawk and Thunderbolt
Along the same lines, NYNJFFF&BA objects to reference in 515.14(d)(3) indicating that information provided by an OTI or another source may be reviewed by the Commission at any time, including at the time of renewal. The association expresses the reasonable concern that any OTI scrutinized by the Commission be given opportunity to respond and refute information that could jeopardize its license.
Even where the renewal process identifies changes in the licensee's information necessitating separate Commission approval, the NOPR makes clear the licensee may continue to operate during such review, 515.14(d)(2). Indeed, a license may be revoked or suspended only after the Commission gives notice and provides a hearing pursuant to § 515.16 (Revocation or suspension of license) and § 515.17 (Hearing procedures governing denial, revocation, suspension of OTI license). Among the reasons for revocation set out in § 515.16 is that the licensee is no longer qualified to render ocean transportation intermediary services. This would include where the licensee was found to no longer possess the character required by the Shipping Act.
The Commission emphasizes that § 515.14(d)(3) creates no new right or power of review of a licensee's character. Such reviews have historically been a function of credible information coming to the attention of the Commission irrespective of any timing relative to license renewal. Section 515.14(d)(3) simply alerts OTIs to that circumstance. In any event, the receipt of information potentially implicating a licensee's character will normally result in Commission staff first contacting the licensee regarding the information.
The OTI and the association commenters suggest that only a simple report, one that is submitted electronically, should be implemented in the event that the Commission goes forward with a requirement that all OTIs update information every three years. NCBFAA suggests a process consistent with the five-year registration renewal requirement included by in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (MAP-21) or with the triennial broker report to CBP. TIA in turn refers to the MAP-21 renewal and to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's requirement that domestic transportation intermediaries renew their information every two years. TIA points out that the FMCSA biennial renewal can be completed on-line in less than an hour, and adds that the Commission and the FMCSA should work to harmonize their proposals so as to streamline regulations as between land-based domestic transport intermediaries and OTIs under the Shipping Act.
Responsive to comments by NCBFAA, NYNJFFF&BA and TIA, the Commission again states its intention that the renewal process will be on-line, user friendly and free. The Commission's objective is that licensed OTIs will verify on-line information such as the QI's identification and contact information, changes in business or organization, trade names, tariff publication information, physical address, and electronic contact data for purposes of notification. Only information that is no longer accurate must be updated. The process will result in a renewed license which specifies the date by which the next renewal is to be completed. An OTI license will not simply expire. In short, the process is less complicated than the status reports submitted to CBP by customs brokers. The consequences of late filing likewise are less onerous in that failure to submit the CBP broker report by the end of February of the reporting year results in a license suspension on March 1, by operation of law. If the status report is not filed within 60 days of the suspension notice, the license is revoked.
The renewal process required by MAP-21 appears similar to the renewal process established by this rule. While registration must be renewed on-line every five years, FMCSA's Unified Registration System (URS) requires updates within 30 days of a change in a registrant's legal name, form of business, or address, and transfers of operating authority. Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349,
UPS expresses a concern that renewed licenses will expire on the date indicated on its license. UPS sees a danger that a license will not be renewed before it expires due to circumstances beyond an OTI's control or, perhaps, beyond the Commission's control, leading to its inability to lawfully accept bookings. In such circumstances, UPS suggests that the Commission's rule provide that the expiration date be automatically extended by ten days.
A failure to renew by the renewal date does not terminate the effectiveness of an OTI's license. Where an OTI has failed to renew, BCL will contact the OTI and remind it of their obligation, urge the OTI to complete the process promptly and offer such assistance as practicable. In the unusual instance where an OTI continually ignored or rebuffed the Commission's efforts to bring it into compliance, (and where such OTI's financial responsibility remains in effect), an enforcement proceeding for suspension or revocation of the OTI license will remain as options for the Commission's consideration. Even in such circumstances, the license remains in effect until revoked or suspended following notice and opportunity for a hearing as provided by the Commission's regulations.
UPS suggests that an update to an OTI's FMC-18 result in the OTI's renewal date being extended to three years from that update. The Commission considers that renewal dates fixed pursuant to § 515.14(d) (1) provides a more stable timeline for OTIs and the Commission. That section provides that a new license bear a renewal date on the same day and month as the date on which the license was originally issued, with the renewal day and month remaining the same for successive renewals. Also, the renewal date remains the same regardless of the date a renewal form is submitted or the date a renewed license is issued. Extending the date as suggested by UPS would require additional resources to accurately track data entry dates in order to establish a renewal date. It is foreseeable that in some instances multiple replacement licenses would have to be produced where there are multiple updates between renewals. In contrast, the rule will provide OTIs and the Commission with ongoing certainty as to the OTI's renewal date.
NCBFAA comments that the Commission should explain its authority to implement a renewal process as neither the specific authority
Since 1961, the Commission has had the responsibility for licensing independent ocean freight forwarders and, from the outset, included regulations requiring forwarders to update information supplied in its application, for example, 46 CFR 510.5(c) (1965). Upon passage of OSRA, the Commission implemented its statutory requirements by extending the prior approval and notification requirements to NVOCC licensees as well as to OFFs. Based upon the Commission's experience that OTIs too often do not update the required information, and the present inability to identify OTIs which should have reported changes under the current rules but have not, the Commission finds it necessary to require OTIs to update that information every three years, using today's technology to enable an on-line renewal process. The shared need of the public and the Commission for current, accurate and reliable information is best served by ensuring the Commission's OTI data base is updated by all licensees every three years to display current licensee information, rather than relying solely on the current requirements.
The Commission is mindful that there are approximately 4,700 OTIs that are currently licensed that have no expiration date. As a result the Commission will advise the public of the timetable and process that will be used to implement renewals for those licensees. That notice will be issued well in advance of the date by which any current licensees will need to renew their licenses. The process will allow current licensees to renew without being unreasonably burdened and should avoid processing delays by the Commission that could occur where too many renewals are submitted within a short time. The total number of current licensed OTIs may, for example, be divided up so that one third of licensees are notified to renew in the first year and one third for each of the following two years, and any renewal dates likewise scheduled on a monthly basis across the course of a given year. A phased schedule is necessary in order to make the workload achievable for Commission staff, without imposing undue or unnecessarily rigid deadlines for the OTI industry.
This section streamlines appeal procedures for denial of OTI license applications, and for revocation or suspension of OTI licenses. Currently, such appeals are conducted under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, published at 46 CFR part 502, and provide procedures ill-suited to reducing the burden, expense and delay attendant to such licensing determinations.
Upon being advised by the hearing officer that a hearing request has been made, BCL will deliver to the hearing officer a copy of the notice of intent given to the applicant/licensee along with materials supporting the notice under § 515.15 (license denials) or 515.16 (license revocations and suspensions). The hearing officer will provide the OTI or applicant with a copy of BCL's notice of intent and the materials, along with a written notice advising the party of its right to submit its written arguments, affidavits of fact, and documents within 30 days. BCL then would submit its response within 20 days of the OTI's submission. These records and submissions constitute the entire record for the hearing officer's decision. The hearing officer's decision must be issued within 40 days of the record being closed.
Section 515.17(d) provides that, for all revocation, termination or suspension proceedings that seek findings of Shipping Act violations, formal proceedings before an Administrative Law Judge are still required. The Commission's formal discovery rules are available in such instances.
NCBFAA expresses concern that revision of the hearing process for denials, suspensions and revocations deny a full evidentiary hearing. NYNJFFF&BA, UPS and Vanguard also suggest that the change in hearing process denies OTIs due process. UPS suggests that the new procedure be used only where an OTI does not appear or comply with the Commission's part 502 (Rules of Practice and Procedure).
As the comments indicate, this streamlined procedure will be of significant benefit where an OTI fails to appear, as such proceedings will consume significantly less time than typical show cause proceedings. The new procedure will take approximately 115 days. In contrast, in Docket No. 14-01,
The new procedure will also serve to shorten denial, suspension and revocation proceedings where the OTI formally appears through counsel, thereby reducing the burden and expense even as to contested proceedings. At the outset of any proceedings, OTIs will receive a far broader disclosure of BCL's case in chief than that required for proceedings conducted under the procedures in part 502. See 46 CFR 502.201. Counsel for the OTI will be able to assess the factual basis of BCL's decision, participate fully in the hearing, and emerge readily equipped to seek Commission review in the event of an adverse decision. OTIs are not disadvantaged by the new procedure as it protects OTIs' due process rights at all stages. Section 515.17(c) provides that OTIs and applicants may seek Commission review of the hearing officer's adverse decision pursuant to 46 CFR 502.227 (applicable to the filing of exceptions). Such requests may include a request for further hearing under part 502 (Rules of Practice and Procedure), including appointment of an Administrative Law Judge. The Commission also may, on its own motion, require a part 502 hearing to review an adverse decision.
Finally, § 515.17(d) provides that, for all revocation, termination or suspension proceedings that seek assessment of civil penalties for Shipping Act violations, formal proceedings before an Administrative Law Judge are still required. The Commission's formal discovery rules remain available in such instances.
Section 515.19 (g)(1) also provides for the hearing process contained in § 515.17 with respect to terminations or suspensions of the effectiveness of foreign-based NVOCC registrations. The streamlined process similarly accords registered NVOCCs the due process required.
Section 515.23(c) requires financial responsibility providers to file with the Commission notices of each “claim, court action, or court judgment against the financial responsibility and each claim paid (including the amount [thereof]) by the [financial responsibility] provider.” Section 515.23(c) provides that such notices be submitted only to the Commission.
NCBFAA, TIA, NYNJFFF&BA, North American, J.W. Allen, Customs Clearance, K&N, John S. Connor, New Direx, W.R. Zanes, Pride, John S. James, C J International, Cargo-Link, Vanguard, Mohawk and Thunderbolt object to the provision requiring financial responsibility providers having to file with the Commission notices of claims and claims paid against a financial responsibility. Although claim information is filed only with the Commission and not published, they assert such information could be damaging to an OTI as claims are often without merit.
NYNJFFF&BA asserts that the additional requirement in § 515.23(c)(3) that reporting of the claimant's name, the court, court case number, the OTI's name and license number may create an impression that such OTIs were irresponsible and cause the Commission to use the information against the OTI. The association suggests that if the Commission is interested in gathering data to better understand the claim experience of financial responsibility, it could request aggregate data without reference to specific claimants and OTIs. NCBFAA and TIA also question the relevance of such information to the fitness of an OTI, and seek assurances it will be kept confidential.
Financial responsibility providers have been required for many years to provide claim information to the Commission. While this requirement has long been a key component in the financial responsibility forms that providers must use in establishing the OTI's financial responsibility under the current regulations, the NOPR brings such requirements forward into its rules. The NOPR also revises the wording of the form's contractual requirements with regard to providing such claim information in order to make the wording more uniform across all four of the financial responsibility forms received by the Commission.
The Commission seeks this fuller claims information as a function of its oversight of OTI financial responsibility coverage. These changes will improve the detail and accuracy of claims information received, the regularity of its receipt from surety providers, and the timeliness by which the Commission may respond in the event the financial responsibility instrument is cancelled, becomes ineffective or is extinguished upon payment of one or more valid claims.
NYNJFFF&BA comments that it is unfair to require such information from OTIs and not from vessel operating carriers or terminal operators. The Commission does not seek this information from vessel operators or terminal operators because such entities are not required by the Shipping Act to obtain financial responsibility. The Commission collects the information for its internal use only and it will be protected to the extent provided by law.
Roanoke supports the inclusion in § 515.23(c) of requirements for financial responsibility providers to notify the Commission of claims and claim payments. Roanoke comments that it would prefer that § 515.23(c)(2) be modified so that notices could be reported within 45 days rather than reported “promptly” as provided in the rule. The Commission does not see a need to drop the word “promptly” and will retain § 515.23(c)(2) as proposed. However, the Commission considers it reasonable for financial responsibility providers to compile claims and claim payment information on a periodic basis and then promptly submit the information to the Commission,
Roanoke also suggests that the changes made to the financial responsibility forms that provide that such information be provided “immediately” be changed to refer to “promptly.” In light of the Commission's decision with respect to § 515.23(c)(2), the Commission will revise the financial responsibility forms to substitute “promptly” for “immediately.” Roanoke also refers to the need in Form FMC-48 (Bond Form) to change the two references to “Insured” to “Principal.” The Commission agrees and will make the substitution.
With respect to Bond Form FMC-48, Roanoke believes that the proviso in the second “Whereas” clause (that a group bond will pay-out claims only to the extent not covered by another surety bond) is unnecessary as it serves no purpose. This same proviso also appears in the Insurance and Guarantee forms. Roanoke asserts that the proviso is appropriately included only in Group Bond Form FMC-69, where it provides that a group bond pays against claims only after other surety bonds, insurance or guaranties have been exhausted. The Commission concurs that the proviso is unnecessary and will delete it from Forms FMC-48, FMC-67 and FMC-68.
Roanoke also proposes that the Commission provide guidance as to the schedule for incorporating the claim reporting changes to the financial responsibility forms and how to quickly make the rule effective in current financial responsibility contracts. Roanoke suggests that the changes be permitted, in the short term, by riders to current bonds. Roanoke also suggests the Commission give OTIs and financial responsibility providers twelve months after the proposed rule becomes effective for new bonds to be fully updated and executed.
Under OSRA, the Commission authorized use of riders so that OTIs and financial responsibility providers could more easily meet the new statutory requirements. This process worked well under OSRA and the Commission agrees that the use of riders here is also appropriate. The Commission also concurs that 12 months would be a reasonable period over which current financial responsibility contracts can be reworked and replaced using the new forms. The Commission will closely monitor this process and work with financial responsibility providers and OTIs following effectiveness of the proposed rule.
Section 515.27(a) makes it clear that no common carrier shall “knowingly and willfully” transport cargo for an NVOCC unless the common carrier has determined that the NVOCC has: A license or registration; published a tariff; and provided proof of financial responsibility. Section 515.27(b)(2) sets forth the Commission's web address as the single-source location that common carriers can consult to verify an NVOCC's status. The Commission is working to ensure that common carriers can readily make the required verifications at a single, convenient location on the Commission's Web site.
The World Shipping Council suggests that the Commission also make a change to § 515.27(d) that would harmonize it with paragraph (b)(1) by using the same reference to “applicable licensing, registration, tariff and financial responsibility requirements” throughout this section. The Commission agrees that these conforming changes improve the section and revises § 515.27(d) to read as follows:
Section 515.31(g) places an obligation on all OTIs to promptly respond to requests for all records and books of accounts made by authorized Commission representatives. In addition, § 515.31(g) now clarifies that OTI principals are responsible for requiring that their agents promptly respond to requests directed to such OTI's agents.
NYNJFFF&BA comments that OTIs are not in a position to ensure that their agents make their corporate records available as those records are not legally the OTI's. The association also indicates that, if the agents resist requests by the OTI, the OTI should not experience the regulatory consequences.
Section 515.31(g) makes OTIs responsible to make available all records relating to ocean transportation intermediary service provided by or for the OTI. The Commission agrees with NYNJFFF&BA that the law of agency and contract govern the OTI's relationship with its agents. Accordingly, the regulation requires OTIs to obligate its agents to provide all records relating to its OTI principal's activities. The Commission's rule anticipates OTIs will be readily able to include provisions in their agency agreements so as to ensure compliance by their agents.
Section 515.31(j) embodies the Commission's decision in Docket No. 06-01,
TIA, NCBFAA, NYNJFFF&BA, North American, J.W. Allen, Customs Clearance, K&N, John S. Connor, New Direx, W.R. Zanes, Pride, John S. James, C J International, Cargo-Link, Mohawk, Vanguard, Thunderbolt express their concern that § 515.31(j) can be read to apply to agents that might advertise to perform an OTI service, as agent, for an OTI. TIA indicates that the use of “OTI services” in the rule is confusing because such services are not defined in the proposed rule. As a consequence, these commenters view § 515.31(j) as problematic. The Commission agrees that the section as proposed is imprecise and is revised as follows:
The current content of § 515.41(c) with respect to special contracts of ocean freight forwarders is deleted. The Commission has determined it is no longer needed. NCBFAA supports the elimination of the current content of § 515.41(c) as not relevant in light of the enactment of OSRA and the importance of individually negotiated rates.
Section 515.42(c) is revised to specifically authorize electronic certifications by forwarders to carriers that forwarding services have been provided. Such electronic certifications (
NCBFAA supports the authorization in section 515.42(c) of electronic certifications that forwarder services have been provided. However, it proposes that there is no need for any certification because vessel operating common carriers have largely eliminated forwarder compensation, in that compensation is only paid where forwarders bring substantial cargo to the carrier and provide significant services. J.W. Allen and W.R. Zanes support elimination of certifications.
NYNJFFF&BA also urges that certifications by forwarders and by vessel operators be dropped based on the paucity of compensation being paid by vessel operators. The association also expresses a concern that carriers may create their own systems requiring OFFs to provide verification of carrier lists. No comments were received from vessel operators or their associations on the change to § 515.42(c).
Vanguard suggests the Commission should allow for a one-time blanket certification by the OFF that services have been rendered on all future shipments, or eliminate certifications entirely. Vanguard questions why a vessel operator certification is necessary.
The Commission appreciates that the number of shipments on which forwarder compensation is paid have greatly diminished. However, the reasons for certification remain—to ensure that forwarder compensation is only paid and received for services actually rendered in accordance with vessel operators' service contracts and tariffs. It would appear that the provision of electronic certification exchanges, verified periodically by the forwarder and the vessel operator, together with the greatly reduced volume of compensation paid will reduce correspondingly the number of certifications required.
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” which will describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In the NPRM, the Commission advised the public that the proposed rule directly affects all U.S. licensed OTIs, of which there were 4,648. The FMC estimated that approximately 97 percent of these OTIs are small entities. Therefore, the Commission determined that this proposed rule will affect a substantial number of small entities.
At that time, the Commission determined that the economic impact on entities affected by the proposed rule would not be significant. Most of the proposed changes were found to have either no economic impact or beneficial economic impacts. Concerning the one
The NCBFAA comments asserted that the license renewal requirement would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Inasmuch as NCBFAA provided no data regarding the potential economic burden associated with this requirement, their assertion remains unsubstantiated. On the other hand, with respect to the rule's elimination of the $10,000 bonding requirement for each unincorporated branch office, a number of OTIs and associations stated that the elimination of that requirement would ease their regulatory burden, reduce their cost of operations and make their companies more competitive in the market for OTI services. These commenters offered no data to quantify their assertions.
NCBFAA asserts that the Commission likewise ignores the cost implications of small entities having to respond to follow-up requests or the need for such entities to defend against any action that might challenge the renewal of a license. As outlined, the on-line renewal process will be free, user-friendly and focused upon verifying factual issues material to the licensee's current status. Only information that is no longer accurate need be updated.
The Commission may revoke a license where an OTI no longer has the experience or character to act as an OTI. OTIs are in control of whether they meet those standards and, correspondingly, in control of whether they have engaged in activities that might lead to a revocation proceeding. The occurrence of such litigation is highly speculative and ultimately in the hands of the OTI. Similarly, the incidence of OTIs needing to respond to follow-up requests by the Commission staff is also speculative as the OTI is expected to provide accurate information in the first instance.
Accordingly, the Chairman of the FMC hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FMC's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
This rule is not a “major rule” under 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Freight, Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the supplementary information, the Federal Maritime Commission amends 46 CFR part 515 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40102, 40104, 40501-40503, 40901-40904, 41101-41109, 41301-41302, 41305-41307; Pub. L. 105-383, 112 Stat. 3411; 21 U.S.C. 862.
(b) Information obtained under this part is used to determine the qualifications of ocean transportation intermediaries and their compliance with shipping statutes and regulations. Failure to follow the provisions of this part may result in denial, revocation or suspension of an ocean transportation intermediary license or registration. Persons operating without the proper license or registration may be subject to civil penalties not to exceed $9,000 for each such violation, unless the violation is willfully and knowingly committed, in which case the amount of the civil penalty may not exceed $45,000 for each violation; for other violations of the provisions of this part, the civil penalties range from $9,000 to $45,000 for each violation (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109). Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation.
The terms used in this part are defined as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Assumes responsibility for the transportation from the port or point of receipt to the port or point of destination, and
(2) Utilizes, for all or part of that transportation, a vessel operating on the high seas or the Great Lakes between a port in the United States and a port in a foreign country, except that the term does not include a common carrier engaged in ocean transportation by ferry boat, ocean tramp, chemical parcel tanker, or by a vessel when primarily engaged in the carriage of perishable agricultural commodities:
(i) If the common carrier and the owner of those commodities are wholly-owned, directly or indirectly, by a person primarily engaged in the marketing and distribution of those commodities, and
(ii) Only with respect to those commodities.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1) Ordering cargo to port;
(2) Preparing and/or processing export documents, including the required `electronic export information';
(3) Booking, arranging for or confirming cargo space;
(4) Preparing or processing delivery orders or dock receipts;
(5) Preparing and/or processing common carrier bills of lading or other shipping documents;
(6) Preparing or processing consular documents or arranging for their certification;
(7) Arranging for warehouse storage;
(8) Arranging for cargo insurance;
(9) Assisting with clearing shipments in accordance with United States Government export regulations;
(10) Preparing and/or sending advance notifications of shipments or other documents to banks, shippers, or consignees, as required;
(11) Handling freight or other monies advanced by shippers, or remitting or advancing freight or other monies or credit in connection with the dispatching of shipments;
(12) Coordinating the movement of shipments from origin to vessel; and
(13) Giving expert advice to exporters concerning letters of credit, other documents, licenses or inspections, or on problems germane to the cargoes' dispatch.
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1) Purchasing transportation services from a common carrier and offering such services for resale to other persons;
(2) Payment of port-to-port or multimodal transportation charges;
(3) Entering into affreightment agreements with underlying shippers;
(4) Issuing bills of lading or other shipping documents;
(5) Assisting with clearing shipments in accordance with U.S. government regulations;
(6) Arranging for inland transportation and paying for inland freight charges on through transportation movements;
(7) Paying lawful compensation to ocean freight forwarders;
(8) Coordinating the movement of shipments between origin or destination and vessel;
(9) Leasing containers;
(10) Entering into arrangements with origin or destination agents;
(11) Collecting freight monies from shippers and paying common carriers as a shipper on NVOCC's own behalf.
(l)
(m)
(1)
(i) In the United States, dispatches shipments from the United States via a common carrier and books or otherwise arranges space for those shipments on behalf of shippers; and
(ii) Processes the documentation or performs related activities incident to those shipments; and
(2)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(1) A cargo owner;
(2) The person for whose account the ocean transportation is provided;
(3) The person to whom delivery is to be made;
(4) A shippers' association; or
(5) A non-vessel-operating common carrier that accepts responsibility for payment of all charges applicable under the tariff or service contract.
(u)
(v)
(1) For an ocean transportation intermediary operating as an ocean freight forwarder, the freight forwarding services enumerated in paragraph (h) of this section, and
(2) For an ocean transportation intermediary operating as a non-vessel-operating common carrier, the non-vessel-operating common carrier services enumerated in § 515.2(k).
(w)
Except as otherwise provided in this part, no person in the United States may act as an ocean transportation intermediary unless that person holds a valid license issued by the Commission. For purposes of this part, a person is considered to be “in the United States” if such person is resident in, or incorporated or established under, the laws of the United States. Registered NVOCCs must utilize only licensed ocean transportation intermediaries to provide NVOCC services in the United States. In the United States, only licensed OTIs may act as agents to provide OTI services for registered NVOCCs.
A license is not required in the following circumstances:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(A) Money order, certified, cashier's, or personal check payable to the order of the “Federal Maritime Commission;”
(B)
(C) The Automated Clearing House system; or
(D) By other means authorized by the Director of the Commission's Office of Budget and Finance.
(ii) Applications or registrations shall be rejected unless the applicable fee and any bank charges assessed against the Commission are received by the Commission within ten (10) business days after submission of the application or registration. In any instance where an application has been processed in whole or in part, the fee will not be refunded.
(2) Fees under this part 515 shall be as follows:
(i) Application for new OTI license as required by § 515.12(a): Automated filing $250; paper filing pursuant to waiver $825.
(ii) Application for change to OTI license or license transfer as required by § 515.20(a) and (b): Automated filing $125; paper filing pursuant to waiver $525.
(a)
(1) It possesses the necessary experience, that is, its qualifying individual has a minimum of three (3) years' experience in ocean transportation intermediary activities in the United States, and the necessary character to render ocean transportation intermediary services. A foreign NVOCC seeking to be licensed under this part must demonstrate that its qualifying individual has a minimum 3 years' experience in ocean transportation intermediary activities, and the necessary character to render ocean transportation intermediary services. The required OTI experience of the QI of a foreign-based NVOCC seeking to become licensed under this part (foreign-based licensed NVOCC) may be experience acquired in the U.S. or a foreign country with respect to shipments in the United States oceanborne foreign commerce.
(2) In addition to information provided by the applicant and its references, the Commission may consider all information relevant to determining whether an applicant has the necessary character to render ocean transportation intermediary services, including but not limited to, information regarding: Violations of any shipping laws, or statutes relating to the import, export, or transport of merchandise in international trade; operating as an OTI without a license or registration; state and federal felonies and misdemeanors; voluntary and non-voluntary bankruptcies not discharged; outstanding tax liens and other court and administrative judgments and proceedings; compliance with immigration status requirements described in 49 CFR 1572.105; denial, revocation, or suspension of a Transportation Worker Identification Credential under 49 CFR 1572; and the denial, revocation, or suspension of a customs broker's license under 19 CFR subpart B, section 111. The required OTI experience of the QI of a foreign-based NVOCC seeking to become licensed under this part (foreign-based licensed NVOCC) may be acquired in the U.S. or a foreign country with respect to shipments in the United States oceanborne foreign commerce.
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(2) An individual who is applying for a license as a sole proprietor must complete the following certification:
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Where information provided in an OTI's renewal form, Form FMC-__, is changed from that set out in its current Form FMC-18 and requires Commission approval pursuant to § 515.20, the licensee must promptly submit a request for such approval on Form FMC-18 together with the required filing fee. The licensee may continue to operate as an ocean transportation intermediary during the pendency of the Commission's approval process.
(3) Though the foregoing license renewal process is not intended to result in a re-evaluation of a licensee's character, the Commission may review a licensee's character at any time, including at the time of renewal, based
(c) Has made any materially false or misleading statement to the Commission in connection with its application; then, a notice of intent to deny the application shall be sent to the applicant stating the reason(s) why the Commission intends to deny the application. The notice of intent to deny the application will provide, in detail, a statement of the facts supporting denial. An applicant may request a hearing on the proposed denial by submitting to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twenty (20) days of the date of the notice, a statement of reasons why the application should not be denied. Such hearing shall be provided pursuant to the procedures contained in § 515.17. Otherwise, the denial of the application will become effective and the applicant shall be so notified.
(a)
(1) Violation of any provision of the Act, or any other statute or Commission order or regulation related to carrying on the business of an ocean transportation intermediary;
(2) Failure to respond to any lawful order or inquiry by the Commission;
(3) Making a materially false or misleading statement to the Commission in connection with an application for a license or an amendment to an existing license;
(4) A Commission determination that the licensee is not qualified to render intermediary services; or
(5) Failure to honor the licensee's financial obligations to the Commission.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(g) * * *
(2)
(a)
(1) Transfer of a corporate license to another person;
(2) Change in ownership of a sole proprietorship;
(3) Any change in the business structure of a licensee from or to a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, or corporation, whether or not such change involves a change in ownership;
(4) Any change in a licensee's name; or
(5) Change in the identity or status of the designated QI, except as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Any person operating in the United States as an ocean freight forwarder as defined in § 515.2(m)(1) shall furnish evidence of financial responsibility in the amount of $50,000.
(2) Any person operating in the United States as an NVOCC as defined in § 515.2(m)(2) shall furnish evidence of financial responsibility in the amount of $75,000.
(3) Any registered NVOCC, as defined in § 515.2(r), shall furnish evidence of financial responsibility in the amount of $150,000. Such registered NVOCC shall be strictly responsible for the acts and omissions of its employees and agents, wherever they are located.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(i) The ocean transportation intermediary consents to payment, subject to review by the financial responsibility provider; or
(ii) The ocean transportation intermediary fails to respond within forty-five (45) days from the date of the notice of the claim to address the validity of the claim, and the financial responsibility provider deems the claim valid.
(2) If the parties fail to reach an agreement in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section within ninety (90) days of the date of the initial notification of the claim, the bond, insurance, or other surety shall be available to pay any final judgment for reparations ordered by the Commission or damages obtained from an appropriate court. The financial responsibility provider shall pay such judgment for damages only to the extent they arise from the transportation-related activities of the ocean transportation intermediary, ordinarily within thirty (30) days, without requiring further evidence related to the validity of the claim; it may, however, inquire into the extent to which the judgment for damages arises from the ocean transportation intermediary's transportation-related activities.
(c)
(2) Notices described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be promptly submitted in writing by mail or email (
(3) Notices required by this section shall include the name of the claimant, name of the court and case number assigned, and the name and license number of the OTI involved. Such notices may include or attach other information relevant to the claim.
(d) The Federal Maritime Commission shall not serve as depository or distributor to third parties of bond, guaranty, or insurance funds in the event of any claim, judgment, or order for reparation.
(e)
(a)
(2)
(b)
No license or registration shall remain in effect unless valid proof of a financial responsibility instrument is maintained on file with the Commission. Upon receipt of notice of termination of such financial responsibility, the Commission shall notify the concerned licensee, registrant, or registrant's legal agent in the United States, by mail, courier, or other method reasonably calculated to provide actual notice, at its last known address, that the Commission shall, without hearing or other proceeding, revoke the license or terminate the registration as of the termination date of the financial responsibility instrument, unless the licensee or registrant shall have submitted valid replacement proof of financial responsibility before such termination date. Replacement financial responsibility must bear an effective date no later than the termination date of the expiring financial responsibility instrument.
(a) No common carrier shall knowingly and willfully transport cargo for the account of an NVOCC unless the carrier has determined that the NVOCC has a license or registration, a tariff, and financial responsibility as required by sections 8 (46 U.S.C. 40501-40503) and 19 (46 U.S.C. 40901-40904) of the Shipping Act and this part.
(b) A common carrier can obtain proof of an NVOCC's compliance with the OTI licensing, registration, tariff and financial responsibility requirements by:
(1) Consulting the Commission's Web site
(2) Any other appropriate procedure, provided that such procedure is set forth in the carrier's tariff.
(c) A common carrier that has employed the procedure prescribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be deemed to have met its obligations under section 10(b)(11) of the Act (46 U.S.C. 41104(11)), unless the common carrier knew that such NVOCC was not in compliance with the applicable licensing, registration, tariff, and financial responsibility requirements.
(d) The Commission will publish at its Web site,
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Agree to perform ocean transportation intermediary services on shipments as an associate, correspondent, officer, employee, agent, or sub-agent of any person whose license has been revoked or suspended pursuant to § 515.16, or registration terminated or suspended pursuant to § 515.19(g);
(2) Assist in the furtherance of any ocean transportation intermediary
(3) Share forwarding fees or freight compensation with any such person; or
(4) Permit any such person, directly or indirectly, to participate, through ownership or otherwise, in the control or direction of the ocean transportation intermediary business of the licensee or registrant.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
Each licensed or registered NVOCC and each licensed ocean freight forwarder shall maintain in an orderly and systematic manner, and keep current and correct, all records and books of account in connection with its OTI business. The licensed or registered NVOCC and each licensed freight forwarder may maintain these records in either paper or electronic form, which shall be readily available in usable form to the Commission; the electronically maintained records shall be no less accessible than if they were maintained in paper form. These recordkeeping requirements are independent of the retention requirements of other federal agencies. In addition, each licensed freight forwarder must maintain the following records for a period of five years:
(d)
The revision reads as follows:
(d)
(1) The in-plant forwarder arrangement is reduced to writing and identifies all services provided by either party (whether or not constituting a freight forwarding service); states the amount of compensation to be received by either party for such services; sets forth all details concerning the procurement, maintenance or sharing of office facilities, personnel, furnishings, equipment and supplies; describes all powers of supervision or oversight of the licensee's employee(s) to be exercised by the principal; and details all procedures for the administration or management of in-plant arrangements between the parties; and
(2) The arrangement is not an artifice for a payment or other unlawful benefit to the principal.
(a)
(b)
(c)
The undersigned hereby certifies that neither it nor any holding company, subsidiary, affiliate, officer, director, agent or executive of the undersigned has a beneficial interest in this shipment; that it is the holder of valid FMC License No. 2, issued by the Federal Maritime Commission and has performed the following services:
(1) Engaged, booked, secured, reserved, or contracted directly with the carrier or its agent for space aboard a vessel or confirmed the availability of that space; and
(2) Prepared and processed the ocean bill of lading, dock receipt, or other similar document with respect to the shipment.
(f)
Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) Bond (Section 19, Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40901-40904)) __ [indicate whether NVOCC or Freight Forwarder], as Principal (hereinafter “Principal”), and __, as Surety (hereinafter “Surety”) are held and firmly bound unto the United States of America in the sum of $__ for the payment of which sum we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally.
Whereas, Principal operates as an OTI in the waterborne foreign commerce of the United States in accordance with the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 40101-41309, and, if necessary, has a valid tariff published pursuant to 46 CFR part 515 and 520, and pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 40901-40904), files this bond with the Commission;
Whereas, this bond is written to ensure compliance by the Principal with section 19 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 40901-40904), and the rules and regulations of the Federal Maritime Commission relating to evidence of financial responsibility for OTIs (46 CFR part 515), this bond shall be available to pay any judgment obtained or any settlement made pursuant to a claim under 46 CFR 515.23 for damages against the Principal arising from the Principal's transportation-related activities under the Shipping Act, or order for reparations issued pursuant to section 11 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41301-41302, 41305-41307(a)), or any penalty assessed against the Principal pursuant to section 13 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109).
Now, Therefore, The condition of this obligation is that the penalty amount of this bond shall be available to pay any judgment or any settlement made pursuant to a claim under 46 CFR 515.23 for damages against the Principal arising from the Principal's transportation-related activities or order for reparations issued pursuant to section 11 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41301-41302, 41305-41307(a)), or any penalty assessed against the Principal pursuant to section 13 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109).
This bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons who have obtained a judgment or a settlement made pursuant to a claim under 46 CFR § 515.23 for damages against the Principal arising from its transportation-related activities or order of reparation issued pursuant to section 11 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41301-41302, 41305-41307(a)), and to the benefit of the Federal Maritime Commission for any penalty assessed against the Principal pursuant to section 13 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109). However, the bond shall not apply to shipments of used household goods and personal effects for the account of the Department of Defense or the account of federal civilian executive agencies shipping under the International Household Goods Program administered by the General Services Administration.
The liability of the Surety shall not be discharged by any payment or succession of payments hereunder, unless and until such payment or payments shall aggregate the penalty amount of this bond, and in no event shall the Surety's total obligation hereunder exceed said penalty amount, regardless of the number of claims or claimants.
This bond is effective the __ day of __, __ and shall continue in effect until discharged or terminated as herein provided. The Principal or the Surety may at any time terminate this bond by mail or email (
The Surety consents to be sued directly in respect of any bona fide claim owed by Principal for damages, reparations or penalties arising from the transportation-related activities under the Shipping Act of Principal in the event that such legal liability has not been discharged by the Principal or Surety after a claimant has obtained a final judgment (after appeal, if any) against the Principal from a United States Federal or State Court of competent jurisdiction and has complied with the procedures for collecting on such a judgment pursuant to 46 CFR 515.23, the Federal Maritime Commission, or where all parties and claimants otherwise mutually consent, from a foreign court, or where such claimant has become entitled to payment of a specified sum by virtue of a compromise settlement agreement made with the Principal and/or Surety pursuant to 46 CFR 515.23, whereby, upon payment of the agreed sum, the Surety is to be fully, irrevocably and unconditionally discharged from all further liability to such claimant; provided, however, that Surety's total obligation hereunder shall not exceed the amount set forth in 46 CFR 515.21, as applicable.
The underwriting Surety will promptly notify the Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, in writing by mail or email (
This is to certify, that the (Name of Insurance Company), (hereinafter “Insurer”) of (Home Office Address of Company) has issued to (OTI or Group or Association of OTIs [indicate whether NVOCC(s) or Freight Forwarder(s)]) (hereinafter “Insured”) of (Address of OTI or Group or Association of OTIs) a policy or policies of insurance for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40901-40904) and the rules and regulations, as amended, of the Federal Maritime Commission, which provide compensation for damages, reparations or penalties arising from the transportation-related activities of Insured, and made pursuant to the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101-41309) (Shipping Act).
Whereas, the Insured is or may become an OTI subject to the Shipping Act and the rules and regulations of the Federal Maritime Commission, or is or may become a group or association of OTIs, and desires to establish financial responsibility in accordance with section 19 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 40901-40904), files with the Commission this Insurance Form as evidence of its financial responsibility and evidence of a financial rating for the Insurer of Class V or higher under the Financial Size Categories of A.M. Best & Company or equivalent from an acceptable international rating organization on such organization's letterhead or designated form, or, in the case of insurance provided by Underwriters at Lloyd's, documentation verifying membership in Lloyd's, or, in the case of surplus lines insurers, documentation verifying inclusion on a current “white list” issued by the Non-Admitted Insurers' Information Office of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Whereas, the Insurance is written to assure compliance by the Insured with section 19 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 40901-40904), and the rules and regulations of the Federal Maritime Commission relating to evidence of financial responsibility for OTIs, this Insurance shall be available to pay any judgment obtained or any settlement made pursuant to a claim under 46 CFR 515.23 for damages against the Insured arising from the Insured's transportation-related activities under the Shipping Act, or order for reparations issued pursuant to section 11 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41301-41302, 41305-41307(a)), or any penalty assessed against the Insured pursuant to section 13 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109).
Whereas, the Insurer certifies that it has sufficient and acceptable assets located in the United States to cover all liabilities of Insured herein described, this Insurance shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons who have a bona fide claim against the Insured pursuant to 46 CFR 515.23 arising from its transportation-related activities under the Shipping Act, or order of reparation issued pursuant to section 11 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41301-41302, 41305-41307(a)), and to the benefit of the Federal Maritime Commission for any penalty assessed against the Insured pursuant to section 13 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109).
The Insurer consents to be sued directly in respect of any bona fide claim owed by Insured for damages, reparations or penalties arising from the transportation-related activities under the Shipping Act, of Insured in the event that such legal liability has not been discharged by the Insured or Insurer after a claimant has obtained a final judgment (after appeal, if any) against the Insured from a United States Federal or State Court of competent jurisdiction and has complied with the procedures for collecting on such a judgment pursuant to 46 CFR 515.23, the Federal Maritime Commission, or where all parties and claimants otherwise mutually consent, from a foreign court, or where such claimant has become entitled to payment of a specified sum by virtue of a compromise settlement agreement made with the Insured and/or Insurer pursuant to 46 CFR 515.23, whereby, upon payment of the agreed sum, the Insurer is to be fully, irrevocably and unconditionally discharged from all further liability to such claimant; provided, however, that Insurer's total obligation hereunder shall not exceed the amount per OTI set forth in 46 CFR 515.21 or the amount per group or association of OTIs set forth in 46 CFR 515.21.
The liability of the Insurer shall not be discharged by any payment or succession of payments hereunder, unless and until such payment or payments shall aggregate the penalty of the Insurance in the amount per member OTI set forth in 46 CFR 515.21, or the amount per group or association of OTIs set forth in 46 CFR 515.21, regardless of the financial responsibility or lack thereof, or the solvency or bankruptcy, of Insured. The insurance evidenced by this undertaking shall be applicable only in relation to incidents occurring on or after the effective date and before the date termination of this undertaking becomes effective. The effective date of this undertaking shall be __ day of __, __, and shall continue in effect until discharged or terminated as herein provided. The Insured or the Insurer may at any time terminate the Insurance by mail or email (
(Name of Agent) __ domiciled in the United States, with offices located in the United States, at __ is hereby designated as the Insurer's agent for service of process for the purposes of enforcing the Insurance certified to herein.
If more than one insurer joins in executing this document, that action constitutes joint and several liability on the part of the insurers.
The Insurer will promptly notify the Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, in writing by mail or email (
Signed and sealed this __ day of __, __.
This Insurance Form has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission.
Guaranty in Respect of Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) Liability for Damages, Reparations or Penalties Arising from Transportation-Related Activities Under the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101-41309) (Shipping Act).
1. Whereas __ (Name of Applicant [indicate whether NVOCC or Freight Forwarder]) (hereinafter “Applicant”) is or may become an Ocean Transportation Intermediary (“OTI”) subject to the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101-41309) and the rules and regulations of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), or is or may become a group or association of OTIs, and desires to establish its financial responsibility in accordance with section 19 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109), then, provided that the FMC shall have accepted, as sufficient for that purpose, the Applicant's application, supported by evidence of a financial rating for the Guarantor of Class V or higher under the Financial Size Categories of A.M. Best & Company or equivalent from an acceptable international rating organization on such rating organization's letterhead or designated form, or, in the case of Guaranty provided by Underwriters at Lloyd's, documentation verifying membership in Lloyd's, or, in the case of surplus lines insurers, documentation verifying inclusion on a current “white list” issued by the Non-Admitted Insurers' Information Office of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the undersigned Guarantor certifies that it has sufficient and acceptable assets located in the United States to cover all damages arising from the transportation-related activities of the covered OTI as specified under the Shipping Act.
2. Whereas, this Guaranty is written to ensure compliance by the Applicant with section 19 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 40901-40904), and the rules and regulations of the Federal Maritime Commission relating to evidence of financial responsibility for OTIs (46 CFR part 515), this guaranty shall be available to pay any judgment obtained or any settlement made pursuant to a claim under 46 CFR 515.23 for damages against the Applicant arising from the Applicant's transportation-related activities under the Shipping Act, or order for reparations issued pursuant to section 11 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41301-41302, 41305-41307(a)), or any penalty assessed against the Applicant pursuant to section 13 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109).
3. Now, Therefore, The condition of this obligation is that the penalty amount of this Guaranty shall be available to pay any judgment obtained or any settlement made pursuant to a claim under 46 CFR 515.23 for damages against the Applicant arising from the Applicant's transportation-related activities or order for reparations issued pursuant to section 11 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41301-41302, 41305-41307(a)), or any penalty assessed against the Principal pursuant to section 13 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109).
4. The undersigned Guarantor hereby consents to be sued directly in respect of any bona fide claim owed by Applicant for damages, reparations or penalties arising from Applicant's transportation-related activities under the Shipping Act, in the event that such legal liability has not been discharged by the Applicant after any such claimant has obtained a final judgment (after appeal, if any) against the Applicant from a United States Federal or State Court of competent jurisdiction and has complied with the procedures for collecting on such a judgment pursuant to 46 CFR 515.23, the FMC, or where all parties and claimants otherwise mutually consent, from a foreign court, or where such claimant has become entitled to payment of a specified sum by virtue of a compromise settlement agreement made with the Applicant and/or Guarantor pursuant to 46 CFR 515.23, whereby, upon payment of the agreed sum, the Guarantor is to be fully, irrevocably and unconditionally discharged from all further liability to such claimant. In the case of a guaranty covering the liability of a group or association of OTIs, Guarantor's obligation extends only to such damages, reparations or penalties described herein as are not covered by another insurance policy, guaranty or surety bond held by the OTI(s) against which a claim or final judgment has been brought.
5. The Guarantor's liability under this Guaranty in respect to any claimant shall not exceed the amount of the guaranty; and the aggregate amount of the Guarantor's liability under this Guaranty shall not exceed the amount per OTI set forth in 46 CFR 515.21, or the amount per group or association of OTIs set forth in 46 CFR 515.21 in aggregate.
6. The Guarantor's liability under this Guaranty shall attach only in respect of such activities giving rise to a cause of action against the Applicant, in respect of any of its transportation-related activities under the Shipping Act, occurring after the Guaranty has become effective, and before the expiration date of this Guaranty, which shall be the date thirty (30) days after the date of receipt of mail or email (
7. Guarantor shall not be liable for payments of any of the damages, reparations or penalties hereinbefore described which arise as the result of any transportation-related activities of Applicant after the cancellation of the Guaranty, as herein provided, but such cancellation shall not affect the liability of the Guarantor for the payment of any such damages, reparations or penalties prior to the date such cancellation becomes effective.
8. Guarantor shall pay, subject to the limit of the amount per OTI set forth in 46 CFR 515.21, directly to a claimant any sum or sums which Guarantor, in good faith, determines that the Applicant has failed to pay and would be held legally liable by reason of Applicant's transportation-related activities, or its legal responsibilities under the Shipping Act and the rules and regulations of the FMC, made by Applicant while this agreement is in effect, regardless of the financial responsibility or lack thereof, or the solvency or bankruptcy, of Applicant.
9. The Applicant or Guarantor will promptly notify the Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, in writing by mail or email (
10. Applicant and Guarantor agree to handle the processing and adjudication of claims by claimants under the Guaranty established herein in the United States, unless by mutual consent of all parties and claimants another country is agreed upon. Guarantor agrees to appoint an agent for service of process in the United States.
11. This Guaranty shall be governed by the laws in the State of __ to the extent not inconsistent with the rules and regulations of the FMC.
12. This Guaranty is effective the day of __, __, __ 12:01 a.m., standard time at the address of the Guarantor as stated herein and shall continue in force until terminated as herein provided.
13. The Guarantor hereby designates as the Guarantor's legal agent for service of process domiciled in the United States __, with offices located in the United States at __, for the purposes of enforcing the Guaranty described herein.
Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) Group Supplemental Coverage Bond Form (Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101-41309)) (Shipping Act).
__ [indicate whether NVOCC or Freight Forwarder], as Principal (hereinafter “Principal”), and __ as Surety (hereinafter “Surety”) are held and firmly bound unto the United States of America in the sum of $__ for the payment of which sum we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally.
Whereas, (Principal) __ operates as a group or association of OTIs in the waterborne foreign commerce of the United States and pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40901-40904), files this bond with the Federal Maritime Commission;
Whereas, this group bond is written to ensure compliance by the OTIs, enumerated in Appendix A of this bond, with section 19 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 40901-40904), and the rules and regulations of the Federal Maritime Commission relating to evidence of financial responsibility for OTIs (46 CFR part 515), this group bond shall be available to pay any judgment obtained or any settlement made pursuant to a claim under 46 CFR 515.23 for damages against such OTIs arising from OTI transportation-related activities under the Shipping Act, or order for reparations issued pursuant to section 11 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41301-41302, 41305-41307(a)), or any penalty assessed against one or more OTI members pursuant to section 13 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109); provided, however, that the Surety's obligation for a group or association of OTIs shall extend only to such damages, reparations or penalties described herein as are not covered by another surety bond, insurance policy or guaranty held by the OTI(s) against which a claim or final judgment has been brought and that Surety's total obligation hereunder shall not exceed the amount per OTI provided for in 46 CFR 515.21 or the amount per group or association of OTIs provided for in 46 CFR 515.21 in aggregate.
Now, therefore, the conditions of this obligation are that the penalty amount of this bond shall be available to pay any judgment obtained or any settlement made pursuant to a claim under 46 CFR 515.23 against the OTIs enumerated in Appendix A of this bond for damages arising from any or all of the identified OTIs' transportation-related activities under the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 40101-41309), or order for reparations issued pursuant to section 11 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41301-41302, 41305-41307(a)), or any penalty assessed pursuant to section 13 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109), that are not covered by the identified OTIs' individual insurance policy(ies), guaranty(ies) or surety bond(s).
This group bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons who have obtained a judgment or made a settlement pursuant to a claim under 46 CFR 515.23 for damages against any or all of the OTIs identified in Appendix A not covered by said OTIs' insurance policy(ies), guaranty(ies) or surety bond(s) arising from said OTIs' transportation-related activities under the Shipping Act, or order for reparation issued pursuant to section 11 of the Shipping Act, and to the benefit of the Federal Maritime Commission for any penalty assessed against said OTIs pursuant to section 13 of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109). However, the bond shall not apply to shipments of used household goods and personal effects for the account of the Department of Defense or the account of federal civilian executive agencies shipping under the International Household Goods Program administered by the General Services Administration.
The Surety consents to be sued directly in respect of any bona fide claim owed by any or all of the OTIs identified in Appendix A for damages, reparations or penalties arising from the transportation-related activities under the Shipping Act of the OTIs in the event that such legal liability has not been discharged by the OTIs or Surety after a claimant has obtained a final judgment (after appeal, if any) against the OTIs from a United States Federal or State Court of competent jurisdiction and has complied with the procedures for collecting on such a judgment pursuant to 46 CFR 515.23, the Federal Maritime Commission, or where all parties and claimants otherwise mutually consent, from a foreign court, or where such claimant has become entitled to payment of a specified sum by virtue of a compromise settlement agreement made with the OTI(s) and/or Surety pursuant to 46 CFR 515.23, whereby, upon payment of the agreed sum, the Surety is to be fully, irrevocably and unconditionally discharged from all further liability to such claimant(s).
The liability of the Surety shall not be discharged by any payment or succession of payments hereunder, unless and until such payment or payments shall aggregate the penalty of this bond, and in no event shall the Surety's total obligation hereunder exceed the amount per member OTI set forth in 46 CFR 515.21, identified in Appendix A, or the amount per group or association of OTIs set forth in 46 CFR 515.21, regardless of the number of OTIs, claims or claimants.
This bond is effective the __, day of __, and shall continue in effect until discharged or terminated as herein provided. The Principal or the Surety may at any time terminate this bond by mail or email (
The Principal or financial responsibility provider will promptly notify the underwriting Surety in writing and the Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by mail or email (
The underwriting Surety will promptly notify the Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, in writing by mail or email (
Signed and sealed this __ day of __,
The undersigned __, as Principal and __, as Surety do hereby agree that the existing Bond No. __ to the United States of America and filed with the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 is modified as follows:
1. The following condition is added to this Bond:
a. An additional condition of this Bond is that $__ (payable in U.S. Dollars or Renminbi Yuan at the option of the Surety) shall be available to pay any fines and penalties for activities in the U.S.-China trades imposed by the Ministry of Communications of the People's Republic of China (“MOC”) or its authorized competent communications department of the people's government of the province, autonomous region or municipality directly under the Central Government or the State Administration of Industry and Commerce pursuant to the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on International Maritime Transportation and the Implementing Rules of the Regulations of the PRC on International Maritime Transportation promulgated by MOC Decree No. 1, January 20, 2003.
b. The liability of the Surety shall not be discharged by any payment or succession of payments pursuant to section 1 of this Rider, unless and until the payment or payments shall aggregate the amount set forth in section 1a of this Rider. In no event shall the Surety's obligation under this Rider exceed the amount set forth in section 1a regardless of the number of claims.
c. The total amount of coverage available under this Bond and all of its riders, available pursuant to the terms of section 1(a.) of this rider, equals $__. The total amount of aggregate coverage equals or exceeds $125,000.
d. This Rider is effective the __ day of __, 20__, and shall continue in effect until discharged, terminated as herein
2. This Bond remains in full force and effect according to its terms except as modified above.
In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals on this day __ of ______, 20__,
[Principal],
By: _____________________________
[Surety],
By: _____________________________
The undersigned __, as Principal and __, as Surety do hereby agree that the existing Bond No. __ to the United States of America and filed with the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 is modified as follows:
1. The following condition is added to this Bond:
a. An additional condition of this Bond is that $ _______(payable in U.S. Dollars or Renminbi Yuan at the option of the Surety) shall be available to any NVOCC enumerated in an Appendix to this Rider to pay any fines and penalties for activities in the U.S.-China trades imposed by the Ministry of Communications of the People's Republic of China (“MOC”) or its authorized competent communications department of the people's government of the province, autonomous region or municipality directly under the Central Government or the State Administration of Industry and Commerce pursuant to the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on International Maritime Transportation and the Implementing Rules of the Regulations of the PRC on International Maritime Transportation promulgated by MOC Decree No. 1, January 20, 2003. Such amount is separate and distinct from the bond amount set forth in the first paragraph of this Bond. Payment under this Rider shall not reduce the bond amount in the first paragraph of this Bond or affect its availability. The Surety shall indicate that $50,000 is available to pay such fines and penalties for each NVOCC listed on appendix A to this Rider wishing to exercise this option.
b. The liability of the Surety shall not be discharged by any payment or succession of payments pursuant to section 1 of this Rider, unless and until the payment or payments shall aggregate the amount set forth in section 1a of this Rider. In no event shall the Surety's obligation under this Rider exceed the amount set forth in section 1a regardless of the number of claims.
c. This Rider is effective the __ day of __, 20__, and shall continue in effect until discharged, terminated as herein provided, or upon termination of the Bond in accordance with the sixth paragraph of the Bond. The Principal or the Surety may at any time terminate this Rider by mail or email (
2. This Bond remains in full force and effect according to its terms except as modified above.
In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals on this ______day of __, 20__.
[Principal],
By: ________________________________
[Surety],
By: ________________________________
The collection of this information is authorized generally by Section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40901-40904). This is an optional form. Submission is completely voluntary. Failure to submit this form will in no way impact the Federal Maritime Commission's assessment of your firm's financial responsibility.
You are not required to provide the information requested on a form that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB control number. Copies of this form will be maintained until the corresponding license has been revoked.
The time needed to complete and file this form will vary depending on individual circumstances. The estimated average time is: Recordkeeping, 20 minutes; Learning about the form, 20 minutes; Preparing and sending the form to the FMC, 20 minutes.
If you have comments concerning the accuracy of these time estimates or suggestions for making this form simpler, we would be happy to hear from you. You can write to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001 or email:
By the Commission.
| 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 |