| Page Range | 71681-71925 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 71921 - Establishing an Emergency Board To Investigate Disputes Between New Jersey Transit Rail and Certain of Its Employees Represented by Certain Labor Organizations | |
| 80 FR 71845 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board; Amendments | |
| 80 FR 71819 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) For the East Side Coastal Resiliency Project, City of New York, NY | |
| 80 FR 71870 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 71846 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 71791 - California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate; Request for Within-the-Scope and Full Authorization; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment | |
| 80 FR 71771 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 238-Dublin, Virginia, Notification of Proposed Production Activity, CEI-Roanoke, LLC, (Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Bottling), Roanoke, Virginia | |
| 80 FR 71912 - U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy: Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 71772 - Certain Steel Nails From Malaysia: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review | |
| 80 FR 71912 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Marcel Broodthaers” Exhibition | |
| 80 FR 71773 - Carbazole Violet Pigment From India and the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order | |
| 80 FR 71836 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, TX | |
| 80 FR 71838 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Shiloh Museum of Ozark History, Springdale, AR | |
| 80 FR 71913 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “The Golden Age of King Midas” Exhibition | |
| 80 FR 71840 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Hudson Museum, University of Maine, Orono, ME | |
| 80 FR 71836 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Neville Public Museum of Brown County, Green Bay, WI | |
| 80 FR 71837 - Notice of Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items: Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, PA | |
| 80 FR 71841 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN | |
| 80 FR 71839 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Neville Public Museum of Brown County, Green Bay, WI | |
| 80 FR 71835 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Neville Public Museum of Brown County, Green Bay, WI | |
| 80 FR 71793 - National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of Public Teleconference Meetings and Public Comment | |
| 80 FR 71795 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
| 80 FR 71693 - Safety Zone; Unexploded Ordnance Detonation; Passage Key, FL | |
| 80 FR 71762 - Instituting Smoke-Free Public Housing | |
| 80 FR 71846 - Notice of Permit Modification Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 80 FR 71843 - TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition | |
| 80 FR 71844 - Meetings of Humanities Panel | |
| 80 FR 71809 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 71784 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 71681 - Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions | |
| 80 FR 71844 - NASA Advisory Council; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 71818 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Previous Participation Certification; OMB No.: 2502-0118 | |
| 80 FR 71822 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Legal Instructions Concerning Applications for Full Insurance Benefits-Assignment of Multifamily Mortgages to the Secretary | |
| 80 FR 71823 - 60 Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request; Notice of Application for Designation as a Single Family Foreclosure Commissioner | |
| 80 FR 71912 - International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 71841 - Boundary Revision of Acadia National Park | |
| 80 FR 71919 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 4255 | |
| 80 FR 71817 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Collection of Qualitative Feedback Through Focus Groups; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 80 FR 71846 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station | |
| 80 FR 71918 - Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Change In Business Address Colonial Surety Company | |
| 80 FR 71801 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 71809 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 71919 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 80 FR 71824 - Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications | |
| 80 FR 71851 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Constituting a Stated Interpretation With Respect to the Meaning, Administration, and Enforcement of Rule 28-Equities | |
| 80 FR 71769 - Administration of Multiemployer Plan Participant Vote on an Approved Suspension of Benefits Under MPRA; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 71833 - Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications; Turner Endangered Species Fund, Bozeman, Montana; Correction | |
| 80 FR 71834 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington | |
| 80 FR 71907 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Computer Matching Program (SSA/Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE))-Match Number 1098 | |
| 80 FR 71808 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
| 80 FR 71810 - Organ-Specific Warnings: Internal Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use-Labeling for Products That Contain Acetaminophen; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 80 FR 71811 - Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease Product | |
| 80 FR 71803 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
| 80 FR 71756 - Microbiology Devices; Classification of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for Bacillus Species Detection | |
| 80 FR 71806 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 71804 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 71802 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 71908 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 71755 - Collection of Connected Entity Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators | |
| 80 FR 71790 - Darren K. Vaughn, Scott M. Fodor, Trust; Notice of Transfer of Exemption | |
| 80 FR 71788 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 80 FR 71789 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 71789 - Roger Rolfe; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 80 FR 71918 - Additional Designations, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act | |
| 80 FR 71774 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Determination on the Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Scalloped Hammerhead Shark Distinct Population Segments | |
| 80 FR 71808 - Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases (BSC, OID) | |
| 80 FR 71803 - Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis Meeting (ACET) | |
| 80 FR 71801 - Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response: Notice of Charter Renewal | |
| 80 FR 71804 - Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases: Notice of Charter Renewal | |
| 80 FR 71807 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control: Notice of Charter Renewal | |
| 80 FR 71770 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Begin Preparations for a Public Hearing Regarding the Civil Rights Impact of Civil Asset Forfeiture in the State | |
| 80 FR 71771 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee to Begin Planning a Series of Public Hearings to Study Civil Rights and the School to Prison Pipeline in Indiana | |
| 80 FR 71770 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Missouri Advisory Committee To Discuss Themes and Findings Resulting From Testimony Received Regarding Civil Rights and Police/Community Interactions in the State | |
| 80 FR 71813 - Request for Public Comment: 30-Day Proposed Information Collection: Indian Health Service (IHS) Sharing What Works-Best Practice, Promising Practice, and Local Effort (BPPPLE) Form | |
| 80 FR 71816 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 71815 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Drug Accountability Report Form and Investigator Registration Procedure in the Conduct of Investigational Trials for the Treatment of Cancer (NCI) | |
| 80 FR 71816 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 71814 - Center for Scientific Review: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 71815 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 71731 - Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions | |
| 80 FR 71794 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 80 FR 71913 - Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
| 80 FR 71845 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 80 FR 71817 - Intent To Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Aircraft Operator Security | |
| 80 FR 71913 - Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Import Statistics Relating to Competitive Need Limitations (CNLs) and Extension of Deadline for Filing Petitions for 2015 CNLs Waivers | |
| 80 FR 71880 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the RiverFront Strategic Income Fund Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 | |
| 80 FR 71892 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for BZX Options | |
| 80 FR 71887 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal Registration Categories and To Retire Other Registration Categories | |
| 80 FR 71862 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees | |
| 80 FR 71868 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Constituting a Stated Interpretation With Respect to the Meaning, Administration, and Enforcement of Rule 28 | |
| 80 FR 71900 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of an Advance Notice To Modify the Options Clearing Corporation's Margin Methodology by Incorporating Variations in Implied Volatility | |
| 80 FR 71858 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to Proposed Rule Change Consisting of Proposed New Rule G-42, on Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors, and Proposed Amendments to Rule G-8, on Books and Records To Be Made by Brokers, Dealers, Municipal Securities Dealers, and Municipal Advisors | |
| 80 FR 71847 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal Registration Categories | |
| 80 FR 71873 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Qualification and Registration of Permit Holders | |
| 80 FR 71871 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees | |
| 80 FR 71879 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees | |
| 80 FR 71850 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees | |
| 80 FR 71842 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 80 FR 71853 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Discontinue the NYSE Realtime Reference Price Market Data Product Offering | |
| 80 FR 71883 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delete Exchange Rule 610, Limitations on Dealings | |
| 80 FR 71855 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding NASDAQ Last Sale Plus | |
| 80 FR 71890 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Making Certain Representations Relating to the NYSE Best Quote & Trades Data Feed | |
| 80 FR 71876 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Corporate Transaction Involving Its Indirect Parent | |
| 80 FR 71864 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Corporate Transaction Involving Its Indirect Parent | |
| 80 FR 71903 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal Registration Categories and To Retire Other Registration Categories | |
| 80 FR 71867 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Making Certain Representations Relating to the NYSE Best Quote & Trades Data Feed | |
| 80 FR 71915 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of an Approved Information Collection; Comment Request; Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions With Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act | |
| 80 FR 71834 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; North Dakota | |
| 80 FR 71833 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Montana | |
| 80 FR 71895 - THL Credit, Inc., et al.; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 71906 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 71871 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 71785 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 71786 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 71812 - National Advisory Council on Migrant Health Request for Nominations for Voting Members | |
| 80 FR 71812 - National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice; Notice for Request for Nominations | |
| 80 FR 71915 - Meeting Notice-U.S. Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council | |
| 80 FR 71907 - Data Collection Available for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 71826 - John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Availability of Draft Maps for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin; Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 71787 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Guaranty Agencies Security Self-Assessment and Attestation | |
| 80 FR 71787 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Middle Grades Longitudinal Study of 2017-2018 (MGLS:2017) Recruitment for 2017 Operational Field Test | |
| 80 FR 71690 - Freedom of Information Act Procedures | |
| 80 FR 71695 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Additional Regulations for the Benton Clean Air Agency Jurisdiction | |
| 80 FR 71914 - Notice of Meeting of the Transit Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS) | |
| 80 FR 71686 - Rules, Regulations, Statements of General Policy or Interpretation and Exemptions Under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act | |
| 80 FR 71747 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
| 80 FR 71751 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 71749 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 71745 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 71684 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 71702 - Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations | |
| 80 FR 71681 - Implementation of Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards |
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Final rule.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) published an interim final rule adopting and implementing the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) on December 19, 2014. CNCS publishes this final rule to adopt and implement the interim final rule without change.
This rule is effective December 17, 2015.
Amy Borgstrom, Associate Director for Policy, at the Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525, phone 202-606-6930. The TDD/TTY number is 800-833-3722.
On December 19, 2014 (79 FR 75871), the Office of Management and Budget issued a joint-agency interim final rule that implemented the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Through that interim final rule, CNCS adopted and implemented the Uniform Guidance and made specific exceptions to the rule. These exceptions are published in 2 CFR part 2205. Additionally, CNCS removed 45 CFR parts 2541 and 2543, which were superseded by the Uniform Guidance and made other conforming amendments to its regulations. The interim final rule was effective on December 26, 2014, and the public comment period closed on February 17, 2015.
CNCS did not receive any comments addressing its regulations. Accordingly, and without change, CNCS adopts and implements the Uniform Guidance as published on December 19, 2014.
CNCS has determined that the rule is not an “economically significant” rule within the meaning of E.O. 12866 because it is not likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or an adverse and material effect on a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities; (2) the creation of a serious inconsistency or interference with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) a material alteration in the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) the raising of novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605 (b)), CNCS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, CNCS has not performed the initial regulatory flexibility analysis that is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For purposes of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, as well as Executive Order 12875, this regulatory action does not contain any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures in either Federal, State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100 million on the private sector.
This rule contains no new information collections subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3506).
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has Federalism implications if the rule imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. The rule does not have any Federalism implications, as described above.
Accordingly, under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 12651c(c), CNCS adopts the interim rule adding 2 CFR part 2205 and amending 45 CFR parts 1235, 2510, 2520, 2541, 2543, 2551, 2552, and 2553, which published at 79 FR 75871 on December 19, 2014, as final, without change.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule.
The Board is amending Regulation D, Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions, to reflect the annual indexing of the reserve requirement exemption amount and the low reserve tranche for 2016. The Regulation D amendments set the amount of total reservable liabilities of each depository institution that is subject to a zero percent reserve
The Board is also announcing changes in two other amounts, the nonexempt deposit cutoff level and the reduced reporting limit, that are used to determine the frequency at which depository institutions must submit deposit reports.
Clinton N. Chen, Attorney (202/452-3952), Legal Division, or Ezra A. Kidane, Financial Analyst (202/973-6161), Division of Monetary Affairs; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202/263-4869); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Section 19(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)) requires each depository institution to maintain reserves against its transaction accounts and nonpersonal time deposits, as prescribed by Board regulations, for the purpose of implementing monetary policy. Section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(2)) authorizes the Board to require reports of liabilities and assets from depository institutions to enable the Board to conduct monetary policy. The Board's actions with respect to each of these provisions are discussed in turn below.
Pursuant to section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act (Act), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution are subject to reserve requirement ratios of zero, three, or ten percent. Section 19(b)(11)(A) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(11)(A)) provides that a zero percent reserve requirement shall apply at each depository institution to total reservable liabilities that do not exceed a certain amount, known as the reserve requirement exemption amount. Section 19(b)(11)(B) provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the reserve requirement exemption amount for the next calendar year if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions increase from one year to the next. No adjustment is made to the reserve requirement exemption amount if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions should decrease during the applicable time period. The Act requires the percentage increase in the reserve requirement exemption amount to be 80 percent of the increase in total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.
Total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions increased by 6.4 percent, from $7,026 billion to $7,476 billion between June 30, 2014, and June 30, 2015. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D to set the reserve requirement exemption amount for 2016 at $15.2 million, an increase of $0.7 million from its level in 2015.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution over the reserve requirement exemption amount and up to a certain amount, known as the low reserve tranche, are subject to a three percent reserve requirement. Transaction account balances over the low reserve tranche are subject to a ten percent reserve requirement. Section 19(b)(2) also provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the low reserve tranche for the next calendar year. The Act requires the adjustment in the low reserve tranche to be 80 percent of the percentage increase or decrease in total transaction accounts of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.
Net transaction accounts of all depository institutions increased 8.0 percent, from $1,904 billion to $2,056 billion between June 30, 2014 and June 30, 2015. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D to increase the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts by $6.6 million, from $103.6 million for 2015 to $110.2 million for 2016.
The new low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption amount will be effective for all depository institutions for the fourteen-day reserve maintenance period beginning Thursday, January 21, 2016. For depository institutions that report deposit data weekly, this maintenance period corresponds to the fourteen-day computation period that begins December 22, 2015. For depository institutions that report deposit data quarterly, this maintenance period corresponds to the seven-day computation period that begins December 15, 2015.
Section 11(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act authorizes the Board to require depository institutions to file reports of their liabilities and assets as the Board may determine to be necessary or desirable to enable it to discharge its responsibility to monitor and control the monetary and credit aggregates. The Board screens depository institutions each year and assigns them to one of four deposit reporting panels (weekly reporters, quarterly reporters, annual reporters, or nonreporters). The panel assignment for annual reporters is effective in June of the screening year; the panel assignment for weekly and quarterly reporters is effective in September of the screening year.
In order to ease reporting burden, the Board permits smaller depository institutions to submit deposit reports less frequently than larger depository institutions. The Board permits depository institutions with net transaction accounts above the reserve requirement exemption amount but total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits below a specified level (the “nonexempt deposit cutoff”) to report deposit data quarterly. Depository institutions with net transaction accounts above the reserve requirement exemption amount and
From June 30, 2014 to June 30, 2015, total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits at all depository institutions increased 5.3 percent, from $10,256 billion to $10,798 billion. Accordingly, the Board is increasing the nonexempt deposit cutoff level by $16.9 million to $416.9 million in 2016 (from $400.0 million for 2015). The Board is also increasing the reduced reporting limit by $77 million to $1.901 billion for 2016 (from $1.824 billion in 2015).
Beginning in 2016, the boundaries of the four deposit reporting panels will be defined as follows. Those depository institutions with net transaction accounts over $15.2 million (the reserve requirement exemption amount) or with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to $1.901 billion (the reduced reporting limit) are subject to detailed reporting, and must file a Report of Transaction Accounts, Other Deposits and Vault Cash (FR 2900 report) either weekly or quarterly. Of this group, those with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to $416.9 million (the nonexempt deposit cutoff level) are required to file the FR 2900 report each week, while those with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $416.9 million are required to file the FR 2900 report each quarter. Those depository institutions with net transaction accounts less than or equal to $15.2 million (the reserve requirement exemption amount) and with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $1.901 billion (the reduced reporting limit) are eligible for reduced reporting, and must either file a deposit report annually or not at all. Of this group, those with total deposits greater than $15.2 million (but with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $1.901 billion) are required to file the Annual Report of Deposits and Reservable Liabilities (FR 2910a) report annually, while those with total deposits less than or equal to $15.2 million are not required to file a deposit report. A depository institution that adjusts reported values on its FR 2910a report in order to qualify for reduced reporting will be shifted to an FR 2900 reporting panel.
The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice of proposed rulemaking have not been followed in connection with the adoption of these amendments. The amendments involve expected, ministerial adjustments prescribed by statute and by the Board's policy concerning reporting practices. The adjustments in the reserve requirement exemption amount, the low reserve tranche, the nonexempt deposit cutoff level, and the reduced reporting limit serve to reduce regulatory burdens on depository institutions. Accordingly, the Board finds good cause for determining, and so determines, that notice in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary. Consequently, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, do not apply to these amendments.
Banks, Banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR part 204 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 248(a), 248(c), 371a, 461, 601, 611, and 3105.
(f) For all depository institutions, Edge and Agreement corporations, and United States branches and agencies of foreign banks, required reserves are computed by applying the reserve requirement ratios below to net transaction accounts, nonpersonal time deposits, and Eurocurrency liabilities of the institution during the computation period.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes. This AD was prompted by multiple reports of chafing found on an electrical wiring harness in the aft equipment bay, caused by contact between the wiring harness and a neighboring hydraulic line. This AD requires an inspection, repair if necessary, and modification of the wiring harness installation to ensure that the wiring harness routing is correct and a minimum clearance between the wire and the hydraulic line is maintained. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing on an electrical wiring harness, which could cause an electrical short circuit or lead to a malfunction of the flight control system, the engine indication system, or the hydraulic power control system; and adversely affect the continued safe operation and landing of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective December 22, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 22, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Service Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-32, dated September 8, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes. The MCAI states:
There have been multiple in-service reports of chafing found on an electrical wiring harness in the aft equipment bay. An investigation determined that the chafing was attributed to contact between the wiring harness and a neighboring hydraulic line. This chafing could cause an electrical short circuit or lead to a malfunction of the flight control system, the engine indication system, or the hydraulic power control system; which could adversely affect the continued safe operation and landing of the aeroplane.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection [general visual inspection], rectification as required [repair of damage (including wear and chafing)], and modification of the wiring harness installation to ensure the correct wiring routing and a minimum clearance between the wire and the hydraulic line is maintained.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 26490, May 8, 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 26490, May 8, 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 26490, May 8, 2015).
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 100-24-24, dated June 6, 2014. The service information describes procedures for an inspection, repair if necessary, and modification of the wiring harness installation to prevent contact with the hydraulic line. 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 107 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours 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 $64 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $43,228, or $404 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
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 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 22, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers 20003 through 20382 inclusive, 20384, and 20386.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical Power.
This AD was prompted by multiple reports of chafing found on an electrical wiring harness in the aft equipment bay, caused by contact between the wiring harness and a neighboring hydraulic line. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing on an electrical wiring harness, which could cause an electrical short circuit or lead to a malfunction of the flight control system, the engine indication system, or the hydraulic power control system; which could adversely affect the continued safe operation and landing of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do a one-time general visual inspection to detect damage (including wear and chafing) of the wiring harness, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier, Inc. Service Bulletin 100-24-24, dated June 6, 2014. Repair any damage before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier, Inc. Service Bulletin 100-24-24, dated June 6, 2014; except, where Bombardier, Inc. Service Bulletin 100-24-24, dated June 6, 2014, specifies to contact Bombardier for repair instructions, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).
(2) Modify the wiring harness routing, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier, Inc. Service Bulletin 100-24-24, dated June 6, 2014.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is a visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-32, dated September 8, 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) Bombardier, Inc. Service Bulletin 100-24-24, dated June 6, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; 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 Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Final rule.
The Commission amends the rules and regulations promulgated under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (“Rules”) to: Modernize the place-of-business listing requirement; incorporate a more comprehensive metric chart; address the use of exponents with customary inch/pound measurements; delete outdated prohibitions on retail price sales representations; and acknowledge the role of the weights-and-measures laws of individual states.
This rule is effective on December 17, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 17, 2015.
Relevant portions of the proceeding, including this document, are available at the Commission's Web site,
Megan E. Gray, Attorney, (202) 326-3408, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Congress enacted the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 1451
Section 1453 of the Act directs the Commission to issue regulations requiring that all “consumer commodities” be labeled to disclose: (a) The identity of the commodity (
In addition, the Act grants the FTC authority to issue rules to prevent consumer deception and facilitate value comparisons.
As part of its ongoing regulatory review program, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) in March 2014 seeking comment on the economic impact of, and the continuing need for, the Rules; the benefits of the
In response, the Commission received fifteen comments. Based on these comments, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on February 2, 2015, proposing several amendments to modernize the place-of-business listing requirement, incorporate a more comprehensive metric chart, address the use of exponents with customary inch/pound measurements, delete prohibitions on certain retail price sale representations, and acknowledge the role of weights-and-measures laws of individual states.
The Commission received nine comments in response to the NPRM, one from a nonprofit association representing officials and consumers affected by the Rules and eight from individuals.
Commission Rule 1.26 sets forth the procedures for promulgation of rules under authority other than section 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act; it governs these FPLA amendments.
Based on its consideration of the record, the Commission amends the Rules as explained below.
Currently, the Rules require a label to conspicuously state the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor and further specify that the place of business statement contain the street address, city, state, and ZIP code. The street address, however, may be omitted if it is listed in a current city or telephone directory.
All the comments addressing this proposal supported it.
Section 500.19(a) currently contains an incomplete metric conversion chart that fails to list possible, albeit uncommon, conversion factors that a packager might use, such as weight expressed in grain, or length expressed in rods. The Commission proposed to correct this omission by deleting the current chart and incorporating by reference the complete metric conversion chart published in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods (2015 ed., Exhibit E, pgs. 135-157).
The only comment addressing this proposal approved its adoption.
In the current rule (Section 500.22), exponents are not listed for customary inch/pound measurements, but are included in the metric examples listed in Section 500.23(b) (
The only comment addressing this proposal approved its adoption.
The Commission proposed to eliminate sections addressing when and how a packager or labeler represents a commodity to be “cents off,” an “introductory offer,” or “economy size.”
The only comment addressing this proposal approved its adoption.
Many products outside the Commission's FPLA purview fall within the purview of weights-and-measures laws of individual states; amending the Rules to acknowledge the state role would aid compliance efforts by alerting businesses that state laws may apply. Therefore, the Commission proposed to amend the Rules to state “[m]any products exempted through proceedings under section 5(b) of the Act and section 500.3(e) of this chapter or excluded under part 503 of this chapter nonetheless fall within the purview of the weights-and-measures laws of individual states.”
The two comments addressing this proposal approved its adoption.
The Rules contain various existing information collection requirements for which the Commission has obtained OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”)
The Commission believes the amendments will not have a significant economic impact on small entities, although they may affect a substantial number of small businesses. The amendments expand labeling options to accommodate the rise of online media, remove unnecessary price statement prohibitions, or are technical in nature.
In the Commission's view, the amendments will not have a significant or disproportionate impact on the costs small entities incur in manufacturing, distributing, or selling consumer commodities. Indeed, the Rule revisions provide increased flexibility for companies complying with the Rules. Therefore, the Commission certifies that amending the Rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Although the Commission certifies under the RFA that the amendments will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Commission nonetheless has determined it is appropriate to publish a final regulatory flexibility analysis to ensure the impact of the amendments on small entities is fully addressed. Therefore, the Commission prepared the following analysis:
The objective of the amendments is to clarify and update the Rules in accordance with marketplace practices. The Act authorizes the Commission to implement its requirements through the issuance of rules. The amendments clarify and update the Rules, and provide covered entities with additional labeling options without imposing significant new burdens or additional costs.
In the NPRM's initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the Commission concluded that the proposed amendments would not have a significant or disproportionate economic impact (including compliance costs) on small entities that produce consumer commodities other than those commodities falling within the authority of other agencies or otherwise outside the Act's or Rules' scope. None of the comments disputed the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The Commission did not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration.
The amendments cover every company in the economy that produces consumer commodities other than those commodities falling within the authority of other agencies or otherwise outside the Act's or Rules' scope. Based on available information, it is not feasible for the Commission to estimate the number of entities within this class of industry that are also small companies within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
As explained earlier in this document, the amendments expand labeling options to accommodate the rise of online media, remove unnecessary price statement prohibitions, or are technical in nature. The small entities potentially covered by these amendments will include all such entities subject to the Rules. The professional skills necessary for compliance with the Rules as modified by the amendments will include office and administrative support supervisors to determine label content and clerical personnel to draft and obtain labels and keep records.
The Commission has not proposed any specific small entity exemption or other significant alternatives, because the amendments expand labeling options to accommodate the rise of online media, remove unnecessary price statement prohibitions, or are technical in nature. In addition, these changes provide new flexibilities for small entitities by, for example, allowing regulated entities to omit a business address from a label if the address is readily available in an online directory or other Web site. Under these limited circumstances, the Commission does not believe a special exemption for small entities or significant compliance alternatives are necessary or appropriate to minimize the compliance burden, if any, on small entities while achieving the intended purposes of the proposed amendments. Nonetheless, the Commission sought, but did not receive, comments on the need, if any, for alternative compliance methods to reduce the economic impact of the Rules on small entities.
None of the comments addressed the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis in the NPRM.
Consistent with 1 CFR part 51, the Commission is incorporating the complete metric conversion chart published in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 133, Checking the Contents of Packaged Goods (2015 ed., Exhibit E, pgs. 135-157), as described in Section III.B above. The metric conversion chart provides a complete and up-to-date list of metric conversion factors for packagers.
The metric conversion chart is reasonably available to interested parties. Members of the public can access the metric conversion chart online at NIST's Web site,
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Trade practices.
Under 15 U.S.C. 1454-1455 and as discussed in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by amending parts 500 and 502 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455.
(d) Each packaged or labeled consumer commodity, unless it has been exempted through proceedings under section 5(b) of the Act, shall bear a label specifying the identity of the commodity; the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; the net quantity of contents; and the net quantity per serving, use or application, where there is a label representation as to the number of servings, uses, or applications obtainable from the commodity. Many products exempted through proceedings under section 5(b) of the Act and section 500.3(e) of this chapter or excluded under part 503 of this chapter nonetheless fall within the purview of the weights-and-measures laws of the individual states.
(c) The statement of the place of business shall include the street address, city, state, and zip code; however, the street address may be omitted if it is listed in a readily accessible, widely published, and publicly available resource, including but not limited to a printed directory, electronic database, or Web site.
(a) For calculating the conversion of SI metric quantities to and from customary inch/pound quantities, the conversion chart published in the following handbook shall be employed: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods, Appendix E—General Tables of Units of Measurements, 2015 Edition, adopted November 2014. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of NIST Handbook 133 at the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Web site,
The following abbreviations and none other may be employed in the required net quantity declaration:
Periods and plural forms shall be optional. Exponents are permitted.
15 U.S.C. 1454, 1455.
By direction of the Commission.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) regulations. Due to the transfer of CBP from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and the subsequent promulgation of DHS FOIA regulations which provide that the DHS FOIA regulations generally apply to all DHS components, most of the CBP FOIA regulations have been functionally superseded. This document sets forth that, with the exception of a regulation pertaining to the treatment of confidential commercial information, CBP will apply the DHS FOIA and Privacy Act regulations for purposes of administering the FOIA. This final rule removes outdated regulations, aligns CBP's regulatory procedures for processing FOIA requests with those of DHS, thereby creating a consistent standard among the DHS components, and brings CBP within compliance of the FOIA guidelines developed by OMB.
Shari Suzuki, Chief, FOIA Appeals, Policy & Litigation Branch, Office of International Trade, (202) 325-0121.
The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) (5 U.S.C. 552) provides for the disclosure of agency records and information to the public unless the records and information are exempted from disclosure. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) regulations specifically covering the production and disclosure of records under the FOIA are set forth in part 103 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 103) and consist of sections 103.1-103.13 (19 CFR 103.1-103.13).
Prior to March 1, 2003, the United States Customs Service (“Customs”) was a component of the Department of the Treasury. On November 25, 2002, the President signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 101
DHS published FOIA and Privacy Act regulations in the
Section 5.1(a)(2) (6 CFR 5.1(a)(2)) states that, except to the extent a DHS component adopts separate guidance under the FOIA, the provisions of the DHS FOIA regulations apply to each component of the Department. However, under these regulations DHS components may issue their own guidance pursuant to approval by DHS. As discussed in more detail below, CBP published in the
For additional resources, please see the CBP FOIA page online at
Due to the promulgation of DHS FOIA regulations which provide that the DHS FOIA regulations generally apply to all DHS components except to the extent that a DHS component adopts separate guidance, most of the CBP FOIA regulations have been functionally superseded. The current CBP regulation, section 103.0, directs the public to the Treasury FOIA regulations found at 31 CFR part 1 and instructs that for any inconsistency between 19 CFR part 103 and the Treasury FOIA regulations, the Treasury FOIA regulations control. The existing CBP regulations are now obsolete and retaining inconsistent regulations causes confusion for those seeking to file a FOIA request. As a result, CBP is amending sections 103.0 through 103.3, removing and reserving sections 103.4 through 103.13 of Subpart A of Part 103, and directing readers to the DHS FOIA regulations. This will align CBP's regulatory procedures for processing FOIA requests and appeals with DHS procedures.
The DHS FOIA regulations reflect many Congressional amendments to the FOIA, for which conforming changes had not been made in the CBP FOIA regulations. The DHS FOIA regulations also reflect OMB's guidelines established in the Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines publication. In addition, DHS recently proposed additional updates to its FOIA regulations to update and streamline the language of several procedural provisions, and to incorporate changes brought about by the amendments to the FOIA under the OPEN Government Act of 2007, among other changes (80 FR 45101, July 29, 2015).
While in practice, CBP currently follows the FOIA, as amended, and the rules and procedures set forth in the DHS FOIA regulations, CBP hopes to eliminate confusion for the public making FOIA requests, as well as CBP personnel handling FOIA requests by removing conflicting and sometimes outdated CBP FOIA regulations and directing readers to the DHS FOIA regulations, as appropriate.
This document makes amendments to the scope section of part 103 (19 CFR 103.0), sections 103.1 through 103.3 of subpart A (19 CFR 103.1-103.3), and by removing sections 103.4 through 103.13 of subpart A of 19 CFR part 103 (19 CFR 103.4-103.13). Specifically, this document amends section 103.0 by removing references to the FOIA subject matters that are no longer discussed within Part 103 because they are now addressed in the DHS regulations and amends section 103.1 to account for CBP's move to virtual reading rooms (19 CFR 103.1). In addition, section 103.2 is revised to explain in paragraph (a) that CBP processes FOIA requests pursuant to the DHS FOIA regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5, subpart A (19 CFR 103.2(a)), unless CBP provides a particular exception. Paragraph (b) of section 103.2 sets forth the exception that CBP will not apply the DHS FOIA regulation pertaining to the treatment of business information contained in 6 CFR 5.8 (19 CFR 103.2(b)). Rather, as explained below, CBP will continue to apply its current regulation in section 103.35 (19 CFR 103.35) which governs the treatment of confidential commercial information. A corresponding amendment is made to section 103.35 (19 CFR 103.35). Lastly, section 103.3 is revised to explain how CBP processes Privacy Act requests pursuant to the DHS Privacy Act
On September 14, 2006, CBP published a final rule in the
As opposed to section 103.35 in title 19 CFR, the DHS FOIA regulation controlling the treatment of business information in 6 CFR 5.8 contains an affirmative requirement that a business submitter must identify information as privileged or confidential in order to be withheld from disclosure. In this regard, 6 CFR 5.8 specifically states that a submitter of business information must use good-faith efforts to designate, by appropriate markings, either at the time of submission or at a reasonable time thereafter, any portions of their submission that they consider to be exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.
Section 5.8 of title 6 CFR also states that, before business information is released, notice will be provided to submitters whenever a FOIA request is made that seeks the business information that has been designated in good faith as confidential or when the agency has a reason to believe that the information may be protected from disclosure. When notice is provided by the agency, the submitter is required to submit a detailed written statement specifying the grounds for withholding any portion of the information and show why the information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential.
CBP has determined that 19 CFR 103.35 remains an effective regulation. In addition, CBP believes that this regulation should be retained in order to assure the public that CBP's established policy governing the treatment of confidential commercial information subject to FOIA requests will not change as a result of the amendments in this document.
CBP has also determined that paragraph (b) of section 103.13 (19 CFR 103.13(b)), which provides that identifying data will not be eliminated from petitions by domestic interested parties, is more appropriately placed within 19 CFR part 175. Part 175 sets forth the regulations for petitions by domestic interested parties. As existing 19 CFR 103.13(b) is specific to petitions by domestic interested parties, this relocation will provide the public involved with such petitions with all relevant regulations in one location. Accordingly, this document moves the provision currently found in paragraph (b) of section 103.13 (19 CFR 103.13(b)) to the end of section 175.21(b) (19 CFR 175.21(b)).
This document also amends sections 103.31a, 103.32, 103.34, 161.15, and 175.21 (19 CFR 103.31a, 103.32, 103.34, 161.15, and 175.21) in order to remove references in these sections to the CBP FOIA regulations that are being removed and to update the references accordingly. In sections 103.31a and 103.32 (19 CFR 103.31a and 103.32), references to CBP FOIA regulations are removed and replaced with references to the DHS FOIA provisions at 6 CFR 5.3. In addition, the introductory paragraph to section 103.31a (19 CFR 103.31a) is revised to replace a reference to section 103.12(d), which is removed by this document, with text from current section 103.12(d) (19 CFR 103.12) providing that trade secrets and commercial or financial information are
In sections 103.34, 161.15, and 175.21 (19 CFR 104.34, 161.15, and 175.21), the reference to CBP FOIA regulations are replaced with references to the FOIA statute at 5 U.S.C. 552. In addition, section 161.15 (19 CFR 161.15) is revised to replace a reference to section 103.12(g)(4) (19 CFR 103.12), which is removed by this document, with a reference to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(D) and text from current section 103.12(g)(4). Section 161.15 (19 CFR 161.15) is also being revised to replace a reference to 103.12(i) (19 CFR 103.12), which is removed by this document, with text from current section 103.12(i) which tracks the language found in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(7)(C)(2). Lastly, this document makes non-substantive amendments to these regulations to reflect the nomenclature changes effected by the reorganization of the U.S. Customs Service under DHS in 2003 and to remove the word consignee from section 175.21 to be consistent with the statutory amendments to 19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(B).
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this regulation.
Following the creation of DHS in 2003, DHS promulgated the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Procedures interim final rule set forth in 6 CFR part 5. For consistent and appropriate administration, CBP generally began applying the DHS FOIA procedures after their publication. However, the CBP FOIA procedures remained in the Code of Federal Regulations, sometimes causing confusion about their use among the public and agency personnel. Unlike the CBP FOIA regulations outlined in 19 CFR 103 subpart A, the DHS FOIA procedures are up-to-date and conform to FOIA guidelines established by OMB. This rule will serve to remove obsolete provisions of CBP's FOIA regulations and will establish uniform FOIA administration procedures among DHS and its component, CBP, in the Code of Federal Regulations. This rule will not affect CBP's current application of FOIA procedures as CBP already adheres to DHS FOIA regulations. Instead, the rule will provide greater clarity of CBP's application of FOIA procedures. Therefore, this rule will not have an economic impact on CBP or the public.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), CBP has determined that it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to delay publication of this rule in final form pending an opportunity for public comment because the existing regulations are obsolete and maintaining
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This document is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.2(a), which provides that the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to CBP regulations that are not related to customs revenue functions was transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 403(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Accordingly, this final rule to amend such regulations may be signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security (or his delegate).
Administrative practice and procedure, Computer technology, Confidential business information, Customs duties and inspection, Freedom of information, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Law enforcement.
Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, parts 103, 161, and 175 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 103, 161, and 175) are amended as set forth below.
5 U.S.C. 301; 552, 552a; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1624; 31 U.S.C. 9701.
This part governs the production/disclosure of agency-maintained documents/information requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as amended (5 U.S.C. 552), the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), and/or under other statutory or regulatory provisions and/or as requested through administrative and/or legal processes. In this respect, this part contains regulations on production or disclosure in federal, state, local, and foreign proceedings and includes specific information pertaining to the procedures to be followed when producing or disclosing documents or information under various circumstances. In addition, this part contains regulations on other information subject to restricted access. As information obtained by CBP is derived from myriad sources, persons seeking information should consult with the appropriate field officer before invoking the formal procedures set forth in this part. Except for 19 CFR 103.35, the regulations in this part supplement the regulations of the Department of Homeland Security regarding public access to records found at 6 CFR part 5. For purposes of this part, the CBP Office of the Chief Counsel is considered to be a part of CBP.
CBP maintains a virtual public reading room at
(a)
(b)
The following types of advance electronic information are
The revisions read as follows:
(b) Under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(F), the Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, has authority, upon the issuance of a written finding by a court that a CBP officer or employee who was primarily responsible for withholding a record may have acted arbitrarily or capriciously, to initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted against that officer or employee. Such proceedings are governed by Merit Systems Protection Board regulations found at Part 1201 of Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(a) * * * Notwithstanding 6 CFR 5.8, for purposes of this section, “commercial information” is defined as trade secret, commercial, or financial information obtained from a person. * * *
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1600, 1619, 1624.
Section 161.15 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
The name and address of the informant must be kept confidential. No files or information will be revealed which might aid in the unauthorized identification of an informant. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(D), specific informant records that are exempt from disclosure are those that could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a state, local, or foreign authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source. Informant records maintained by CBP under an informant's name or personal identifier that are requested by a third party according to the informant's name or personal identifier are not subject to the disclosure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), unless the informant's status as an informant has been officially confirmed.
R.S. 251, as amended, secs. 516, 624, 46 Stat. 735, as amended, 759; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1516, 1624, unless otherwise noted.
Section 175.21 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
(b)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone within a 2000-ft radius of an ordnance detonation area. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the unexploded ordnance detonation. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.
This rule is effective without actual notice from November 17, 2015 through December 18, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from November 6, 2015 through November 17, 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 Boatswain's Mate First Class Tyrone J. Stafford, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228-2191 ext. 8307, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest”. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard was not aware of the ordinance removal operation or details needed to implement a safety zone in time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by November 06, 2015 to ensure the protection of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the unexploded ordnance detonation.
We are issuing this temporary final rule and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The purpose of this event is to clear any unexploded ordnance from a former gunnery training site. The Passage Key Air-to Ground Gunnery Range area was formerly used for arial training during World War II. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE will search for and destroy any ordinance found in the vicinity of Passage Key with controlled explosives. The safety zone will incorporate a 2000-ft buffer area outside of the investigation and detonation area. The U.S. USACE will be responsible for the detonation of ordnance within the specified area.
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of this rule is to protect the personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
This rule establishes a safety zone from November 06, 2015 through December 18, 2015. The safety zone will include waters within a 2000-ft radius of the unexploded ordnance detonation zone around the Passage Key Air-to-Ground Gunnery Range located in Manatee County, FL, identified by several law enforcement vessels showing flashing blue lights. All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering or remaining in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
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.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zone. The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of 36 days between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., in a location where commercial vessel traffic is expected to be minimal. Commercial vessel traffic may transit the safety zone to the extent compatible with public safety if authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated representatives. The Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local community by a Local Notice to Mariners.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
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 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 M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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 a safety zone lasting no more than 36 days. It will prohibit entry within all navigable waters within a 2000-ft radius of an unexploded ordnance detonation zone identified by law enforcement vessels showing flashing blue lights in the vicinity of Passage Key Air-to-Ground Gunnery Range located in Manatee County, FL. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked 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, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) If authorization to enter or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. Recreational vessels authorized to enter the regulated area may be subject to boarding and inspection of the vessel and persons onboard.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, and/or on-scene designated representatives.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) that were submitted by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) in coordination with Benton Clean Air Agency (BCAA) on August 25, 2015. In the fall of 2014 and spring of 2015, the EPA approved numerous revisions to Ecology's general air quality regulations. However, our approval of the updated Ecology regulations applied only to geographic areas where Ecology, and not a local air authority, has jurisdiction, and statewide to source categories over which Ecology has sole jurisdiction. This final approval allows BCAA to rely primarily on Ecology's general air quality regulations for sources within BCAA's jurisdiction, including implementation of the minor new source review and nonattainment new source review permitting programs. This final action also approves of a small set of BCAA regulatory provisions that replace or supplement parts of Ecology's general air quality regulations.
This final rule is effective December 17, 2015.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0600. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For information please contact Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256,
On September 15, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve revisions to the general air quality regulations contained in the Washington SIP as they apply to BCAA's jurisdiction (80 FR 55280). An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on October 15, 2015. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.
The EPA is approving and incorporating by reference into the Washington SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 4, “Additional Regulations Approved for the Benton Clean Air Agency (BCAA) Jurisdiction” the BCAA and Ecology regulations listed in the tables below for sources within BCAA's jurisdiction.
In addition to the regulations approved and incorporated by reference above, the EPA reviews and approves state and local clean air agency submissions to ensure they provide adequate enforcement authority and other general authority to implement and enforce the SIP. However, regulations describing such agency enforcement and other general authority are generally not incorporated by reference so as to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's independent
The regulations contained in Washington's SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 4 were last approved by the EPA on June 2, 1995 (60 FR 28726). The EPA is removing from this table WAC 173-400-010 and 173-400-020 because these provisions are replaced by the BCAA corollaries 1.02,
This revision to the SIP applies specifically to the BCAA jurisdiction incorporated into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 4. As discussed in the EPA's October 3, 2014 action on the general provisions of Chapter 173-400 WAC, jurisdiction is generally defined on a geographic basis (Benton County); however there are exceptions (79 FR 59653 at page 59654). By statute, BCAA does not have authority for sources under the jurisdiction of the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). See Revised Code of Washington Chapter 80.50. Under the applicability provisions of WAC 173-405-012, WAC 173-410-012, and WAC 173-415-012, BCAA also does not have jurisdiction for kraft pulp mills, sulfite pulping mills, and primary aluminum plants. For these sources, Ecology retains statewide, direct jurisdiction. Ecology also retains statewide, direct jurisdiction for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. Therefore, the EPA is not approving into 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 4 those provisions of Chapter 173-400 WAC related to the PSD program. Specifically, these provisions are WAC 173-400-116 and WAC 173-400-700 through 750.
As described in the EPA's April 29, 2015 action, jurisdiction to implement the visibility permitting program contained in WAC 173-400-117 varies depending on the situation. Ecology retains authority to implement WAC 173-400-117 as it relates to PSD permits (80 FR 23721 at page 23726). However for facilities subject to nonattainment new source review (NNSR) under the applicability provisions of WAC 173-400-800, we are approving BCAA to implement those parts of WAC 173-400-117 as they relate to NNSR permits. See 80 FR 23726.
Lastly, the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian reservations in the State, except for non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as the 1873 Survey Area), or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is revising our incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 4 “Additional Regulations Approved for the Benton Clean Air Agency (BCAA) Jurisdiction” to reflect the regulations shown in the tables in section III.A.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
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 19, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission takes several steps to accommodate the long-term needs of wireless microphone users. Wireless microphones play an important role in enabling broadcasters and other video programming networks to serve consumers, including as they cover breaking news and live sports events. They enhance event productions in a variety of settings—including theaters and music venues, film studios, conventions, corporate events, houses of worship, and internet webcasts. They also help create high quality content that consumers demand and value. In particular, the Commission provides additional opportunities for wireless microphone operations in the TV bands following the upcoming incentive auction, and provides new opportunities for wireless microphone operations to access spectrum in other frequency bands where they can share use of the bands without harming existing users.
Effective December 17, 2015, except for the amendments to §§ 15.37(k) and 74.851(l), which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require approval by the OMB under the
Paul Murray, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-0688, email:
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. The repurposing of broadcast television band spectrum for wireless services set forth in the
2. This proceeding was initiated to explore steps to address wireless microphone users' longer term needs. The actions the Commission is taking in this R&O make additional spectrum resources available to accommodate wireless microphones users' needs over the long term. The Commission's goal is to enable the development of a suite of devices that operate in different bands and can meet wireless microphone users' various needs while efficiently sharing the spectrum with other users.
3. In this proceeding the Commission uses the term “wireless microphones” to reference wireless microphones and other related wireless audio devices. The Commission has authorized wireless microphone operations in different spectrum bands to accommodate the growing use of these devices by different users. The technical and operational rules for wireless microphone operations in these different bands have varied, depending on the band, and generally are designed to enable wireless microphone users to operate in shared bands along with other users.
4. Under current rules, the Commission has authorized wireless microphones to operate both on a licensed basis, limited to specified users, and on an unlicensed basis. The table below sets forth the bands in which wireless microphones and related audio devices generally operate today pursuant to the Commission's rules.
5.
6. In the
7. Finally, concurrent with adoption of the
8. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
9. In this Order, the Commission takes several actions to accommodate wireless microphone users' needs in the coming years. Many types of users employ wireless microphones in a variety of settings. Wireless microphone operations range from professional uses, with the need for numerous high-performance microphones along with other microphones, to an individual consumer's use of a handheld microphone at a conference or in a karaoke bar. Through these actions, the Commission seeks to enable wireless microphone users to have access to a suite of devices that operate effectively and efficiently in different spectrum bands and can address their respective needs.
10. As discussed below, the Commission adopts several changes in its rules for operations in the TV bands, where most wireless microphone operations occur today. With respect to the TV bands, the Commission revises its rules to provide more opportunities to access spectrum by allowing greater use of the VHF channels and more co-channel operations without the need for coordination where use would not cause harmful interference to TV service. It also expands eligibility for the licensed use of the duplex gap to all entities now eligible to hold LPAS licenses for using TV band spectrum. The Commission also will require new wireless microphones operating in the TV bands and certain other bands to meet the more efficient analog and digital European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) standards, which will ensure more efficient use of the spectrum. In addition, the Commission addresses consumer education and outreach efforts that can help consumers transition out of the TV band spectrum that is repurposed for wireless services, and equipment certification procedures that will apply to wireless microphones in the future. The Commission also takes several additional actions with respect to other spectrum bands currently available for wireless microphone operations to enable greater use of these bands to accommodate wireless microphone uses in the future. Specifically, it adopts revisions to provide new opportunities for such use in the 169-172 MHz band and the 944-952 MHz band. Finally, the Commission opens up portions of three other sets of spectrum bands—the 941-944 MHz and 952-960 MHz bands (on each side of the 944-952 MHz band), the 1435-1525 MHz band, and the 6875-7125 MHz band—for sharing with licensed wireless microphone operations under specified conditions.
11. In the
12. Wireless microphone manufacturers assert that significant steps have already been taken to make for more efficient use of available spectrum, including the increasing use of newer digital technologies that can greatly expand the number of microphones on a TV channel for many types of applications that do not require the highest sound fidelity. Several also state that more devices are increasingly being designed for operations in bands outside of the TV bands, including in bands permitting unlicensed operations, and that these new devices can efficiently and effectively accommodate many wireless microphone users' needs. Wireless microphone manufacturers generally asserted that adopting rules that require specific features (
13. While many wireless microphone manufacturers explain that they are already committed to harnessing technological advances in this area, the Commission reiterates the importance of improved spectral efficiency, spectrum sharing, and flexibility. It expects wireless microphone manufacturers to continue to take advantage of technological advances to promote more efficient use of spectrum available for wireless microphone operations. To further promote efficient use, the Commission also is taking the step of adopting the more efficient ETSI standards for wireless microphones in several bands, as discussed below. The Commission also anticipates that future technological advances will enable wireless microphones to more effectively share the available spectrum resource, and require use of certain technological advances to protect incumbent operation when authorizing wireless microphone users to access the 1435-1525 MHz band spectrum in the future.
14. In the sections below, the Commission addresses the actions that it is taking in this R&O with respect to wireless microphone operations in different spectrum bands. The Commission discusses each of the bands on which it sought comment in the
15. The Commission's current part 74, subpart H rules authorize operations of wireless microphones and other LPAS on a licensed basis in the bands allocated for TV broadcasting (Channels 2-51, except channel 37). These LPAS devices are intended to transmit over distances of approximately 100 meters. In addition to wireless microphones, these LPAS devices include such uses as cue and control communications and synchronization of TV camera signals. The Commission's rules permit licensed LPAS operations on a secondary, non-exclusive basis. Entities eligible to hold these LPAS licenses include broadcasters, television producers, cable producers, motion picture producers, and qualifying professional sound companies and operators of large venues. Since 2010, the Commission also has permitted unlicensed operations of wireless microphones in the core television bands (channels 2-51, except channel 37) pursuant to a limited waiver and certain part 15 rules
16. Under the part 74 LPAS rules, licensed wireless microphones are permitted to operate with a maximum bandwidth of 200 kHz (made up of one or more 25 kHz segments). In the VHF band (channels 2-13, which include the 54-72 MHz, 76-88 MHz, and 174-216 MHz frequencies) power levels are limited to 50 mW, whereas in the UHF band (channels 14-51, except channel 37, which include the 470-608 MHz and 614-698 MHz frequencies), power levels can range up to 250 mW. The power levels for unlicensed wireless microphone operations pursuant to waiver, however, are limited to no more than 50 mW throughout the TV bands (both VHF and UHF). Licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones may operate co-channel with television stations at locations that are separated from television stations by at least 4 kilometers from their protected contours. In addition, licensed LPAS users may operate on a co-channel basis even closer to television stations provided that such operations have been coordinated with affected broadcasters.
17. The particular television channels available for wireless microphone operations will vary depending on the specific location. In many instances these channels also are available for use by unlicensed white space devices. The Commission currently designates the two unused television channels (where available) nearest channel 37 (above and below) for wireless microphone uses, prohibiting white space devices on those channels. As discussed in the
18. As set forth in the
19. In this section, the Commission sets forth part 74 rule revisions to accommodate licensed wireless microphone (and other LPAS) operations in the VHF and UHF spectrum in the repacked TV bands that will continue to be available for TV broadcast services following the incentive auction. The Commission is not addressing in this proceeding certain issues relating to wireless microphone operations in the TV bands and in the repurposed 600 MHz Band since these matters are being addressed instead in the part 15 proceeding. In particular, it does not here address the rules for unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands and the repurposed 600 MHz Band, which are addressed as part of the
20. Under the existing technical rules for LPAS operations under part 74, licensed wireless microphone users that operate on a secondary basis in the VHF band (channels 2-13) operate generally under the same technical rules as for operations in the UHF bands. However, with respect to power levels, VHF band operations are restricted to no more than 50 mW, well below the 250 mW levels permitted for operations in the UHF bands.
21. In the
22. The Commission is revising its rules to provide more opportunities for licensed wireless microphone use of these VHF channels. While the Commission is not permitting power levels of up to 250 mW conducted power, it is revising the rules that currently measure the 50 mW limit in terms of conducted power, to specify the 50 mW limit in terms of effective or equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP), as suggested by Shure in its comments. Several reasons inform this approach. As noted by Shure, specifying the power levels in terms of EIRP instead of conducted power will be particularly beneficial to wireless microphone users in the VHF band, where the efficiency of antennas is lower due to the longer radio wavelengths. This approach will allow manufacturers to adjust the conducted power output of a device to compensate for low antenna efficiency, thus helping address wireless microphone operators' interest in making greater use of this
23. In the
24. In the
25. The Commission will permit closer co-channel operations by licensed wireless microphone operators on any TV channel where the TV signal falls below a threshold of -84 dBm over the entire TV channel, provided certain conditions are met. Such operations will be limited to systems operating at an indoor location, and not in an itinerant fashion where the signal threshold could be ever-changing, and the location is not being used for over-the-air television viewing. The Commission also requires that the licensed operators have the requisite wireless microphone systems for determining the threshold at the location, as well as the professional qualifications for evaluating the signals, and that the signals be measured where the wireless microphones would be operated at the location, and must be scanned across the full six-megahertz TV channel; to the extent directional antennas are employed, they must be rotated to the place of the maximum signal at the location. The Commission believes this approach for licensed wireless microphone operations is reasonable for several reasons. As Sennheiser points out in its comments, the signals would exceed the threshold of visibility under the Advanced Television Systems Committee guidelines. The location of operations is indoors and contained, and wireless microphone signals do not generally transmit beyond very limited distances (
26. The technical rules applicable to part 74 LPAS devices operations in the TV bands set forth specified out-of-band emission mask requirements for wireless microphones, regardless of whether the device is analog or digital. These rules have not been revised since 1987.
27. In the
28. To promote more efficient use of the limited TV band spectrum available for wireless microphones, the Commission is adopting the ETSI standard emission masks for LPAS devices used by wireless microphone licensees under its part 74 rules. Specifically, it will require that emissions from analog and digital unlicensed wireless microphones comply with the emission masks in Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08),
29. In the
30. The Commission concludes that extending the existing waiver of its rules to permit nuclear power plants the continued use of spectrum in the core TV bands would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Commission hereby grants a permanent waiver of its rules to allow the continued use of wireless headsets at nuclear power plants, under the same conditions as the current waiver, in the spectrum that will continue to be allocated for television following the incentive auction. In addition, this waiver will permit nuclear power plants to continue to access the spectrum repurposed for 600 MHz wireless service during the transition period, but no later, provided that they meet the conditions for secondary operations in this band. The terms of this waiver do not extend to include operations in the 600 MHz guard bands, including the duplex gap, which will no longer be allocated for broadcast TV. As discussed in the
31. In granting this permanent waiver, the Commission declines to revise the part 74 LPAS rules to provide for such operations on a licensed basis. The Commission previously declined to make nuclear plants eligible under part 74, and the issues raised regarding the use of these particular devices involve considerations unique to the nuclear power industry, and do not apply to other part 74 LPAS licensees. Further, in light of the Commission's grant of a permanent waiver with the associated conditions, licensee status is not necessary.
32. In the
33. As discussed in the
34. Following the upcoming incentive auction, certain existing television channels in the UHF band will be repurposed for 600 MHz Band wireless services. In the
35. In the
36. The Commission specifically sought comment in the
37. The Commission sought comment on the particular actions that wireless microphone manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and other entities comprising the wireless microphone community should take to inform the wide range of wireless microphone users about the ongoing developments concerning wireless microphone use—particularly the need to vacate the repurposed 600 MHz Band, the timetable for doing so, and the conditions for operating in the band during the transition period. It asked what specific information should be provided to wireless microphone users to ensure that they know the requirements for operating in the repurposed spectrum during the transition period and the need to exit the band by the end of the transition, as well as what steps can be taken to provide wireless microphone users with information on the transition prior to the auction. In particular, the Commission inquired whether it would it be beneficial for wireless microphone users to have access to a database or some form of online mapping tool to help users that enter the location and operating frequencies to determine whether they can continue to operate in the repurposed 600 MHz Band during the transition period, and if so, who should be responsible for developing and maintaining (hosting) it. Similarly, the Commission asked whether it should work with wireless microphone manufacturers to obtain information on models of wireless microphones that it could list on its Web site in order to facilitate a smooth transition from the 600 MHz Band. In addition to steps that may involve manufacturers, the Commission sought comment on what steps other parties associated with the sale and operation of wireless microphones (
38. The Commission also invited specific comment on what additional information it should make available for wireless microphone users, including Commission-issued consumer “fact sheets” and “frequently asked questions” (FAQ's) which would address, among other matters, information on operation in the 600 MHz Band, the reason for the need to operate on frequencies outside of that band following the transition, the availability of other frequency bands for wireless microphone use, and the need to comply with Commission rules.
39. Finally, the Commission proposed to revise its point-of-sale disclosure requirement that it adopted in the
40. As set forth in the
41.
42.
43. Further, the Commission expects all manufacturers of wireless microphones to make significant efforts to ensure that all users of such equipment capable of operating in the 600 MHz Band are fully informed of the decisions affecting them, as set forth in the
44. In addition, the Commission notes that manufacturers may choose to offer rebates and trade-in programs for any 600 MHz Band wireless microphones, similar to what was done with respect to transitioning wireless microphone users out of the 700 MHz band. The Commission encourages them to consider creating or establishing such programs here. In contacting dealers and distributors, it expects manufacturers to inform these entities that they should: (1) Inform all customers who have purchased wireless microphones that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz Band of its decision to clear the 600 MHz Band of such devices; (2) post such information on their Web sites; (3) include this information in all other sales materials; (4) provide information in sales materials, including on their Web sites, on the availability of any manufacturer rebate offerings and trade-in programs related to wireless microphones operating in the 600 MHz Band; and (5) comply with the disclosure requirements that the Commission is adopting in this Order.
45. All wireless microphones that now operate in the TV bands are certified as compliant with part 74, subpart H of the Commission's rules. The Commission decided in the
46. In the
47. In this proceeding, the Commission proposed that parties could no longer submit applications to certify Part 74 wireless microphones that operate in repurposed TV spectrum beginning nine months after the release of the
48. The Commission adopts its proposals for establishing cutoff dates for the certification, manufacturing and marketing of licensed wireless microphones in the TV bands, the guard bands (including the duplex gap), and the repurposed 600 MHz Band. The Commission adopts transition rules for the TV bands, the guard bands (including the duplex gap), and the repurposed 600 MHz Band that will allow it to gradually phase out older microphones and introduce new ones that are compliant with the technical rules for part 74 wireless microphones that it adopts in this proceeding and for unlicensed wireless microphones generally and for licensed wireless microphones in the duplex gap that it adopts in the
49. The Commission adopts the cutoff dates proposed in the
50. The Commission recognizes that it is important to provide manufacturers with sufficient time to design new products, obtain Commission certification, and commence manufacturing. It is equally important to allow manufacturers to sell existing devices that allow the public to continue providing service until new products are available in the marketplace. The cutoff dates that the Commission adopts for certification, manufacturing and marketing of wireless microphones appropriately balance these two goals, and it disagrees with the cutoff dates proposed by CTIA and Mobile Future. Manufacturers will not know what band plan they need to design and manufacture to until after the incentive auction is concluded, and it would be unreasonable to require that only certification applications complying with the new rules be accepted at the time the
51. In the
52. The Commission adopts the proposal set forth in the
53. Wireless microphones operating pursuant to the part 74 LPAS rules also are authorized to operate on a licensed basis in small portions of certain broadcast bands, including the 26.100-26.480 MHz, the 161.625-161.775 MHz, the 450-451 MHz, and the 455-456 MHz bands. Eligibility for operating in these bands is limited to broadcasters and broadcast network entities. While the Commission did not propose any specific revisions concerning these rules in the
54. Given commenters' general view that additional use of these bands is limited, and considering the small amount of spectrum they offer, revision of its rules to permit expanded operations in these bands would not yield much benefit. Furthermore, the Commission has sought comment on revising the rules in these bands to allow for the use of digital technologies of Remote Pickup (RPU) stations in another rulemaking, which could result in more intensive use of these bands. The Commission therefore concludes that it will not make these bands available for wireless microphone operations other than as currently authorized, and subject to the outcome in the latter proceeding.
55. As discussed in the
56. Based on the comments and record before the Commission, and the apparently minimal opportunity for making use of this band, it declines to make any revisions to the rules applicable to wireless microphone operations in the 88-108 MHz FM band.
57. Under the Commission's part 90 rules, entities eligible to hold a Public Safety Pool or Industrial/Business Pool license may operate wireless microphone operations on a secondary basis on eight frequencies in the 169-172 MHz band, which is allocated primarily for Federal use. Specifically, these rules permit wireless microphones to be operated on only eight frequencies: 169.445 MHz, 169.505 MHz, 170.245 MHz, 170.305 MHz, 171.045 MHz, 171.105 MHz 171.845 MHz, and 171.905 MHz. The emission bandwidth may not exceed 54 kilohertz, the frequency stability of the microphones must limit the total emission to within ± 32.5 kilohertz of the assigned frequency, and operations may not exceed an output power level of 50 mW.
58. Wireless microphone operations are not protected from other licensed operations in the band, and must not cause interference to any Government or non-Government operations, and wireless microphone license applications are subject to Government coordination. Other non-Federal operations in the band, which also are secondary to the Federal allocation, operate on 12.5 kilohertz channels, and include (1) operations on 36 specified frequencies between 169.425 MHz and 171.925 MHz for the purpose of transmitting hydrological or meteorological data (hydro channels), (2) operations on 9 frequencies between 170.425 MHz and 172.375 MHz for forest firefighting and conservation purposes (forest firefighting channels), and (3) operations on frequency 170.150 MHz for public safety purposes and broadcast remote pickup stations in certain parts of the country. The current 169-172 MHz band wireless microphone channels overlap the hydro channels, but not the forest firefighting channels or public safety operations on frequency 170.150 MHz.
59. In the
60. As noted above, the current 169-172 MHz band wireless microphone channels overlap the hydro channels, but not the forest firefighting channels. Making as much of the 169-172 MHz band as possible available for wireless microphone use and allowing operation with bandwidths of up to 200 kilohertz on center frequencies throughout the band, as advocated by the commenters,
61. The Commission agrees with commenters that it should promote more opportunities for wireless microphone use of this band. Consequently, the Commission will pursue the approach of creating new channel centers between the existing neighboring pairs of channels (
62. In order to protect Federal operations and the other secondary non-Federal services, the Commission rejects the suggestion that it authorize wireless microphone operations in the 169-172 MHz band on an unlicensed basis pursuant to part 15. Unlicensed operations would eliminate the Federal Government's ability to review and object to new assignments in this primary Federal band. Instead, these operations will be licensed pursuant to part 90 and applications will be subject to Government coordination.
63. In the
64. The Commission's part 74, subpart H rules authorize operations of wireless microphones on a licensed basis in the 944-952 MHz band. These LPAS operations are authorized on a co-primary basis along with other Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) consisting of fixed Aural Studio to Transmitter links (STL) stations and fixed Aural Intercity Relay Links stations (ICR). Entities eligible for a license to operate wireless microphones are limited to broadcast licensees and broadcast network entities. LPAS devices using this particular band of spectrum may also be used to transmit synchronizing signals and various control signals to portable or hand-carried TV cameras which employ low power radio signals in lieu of cable to deliver picture signals to the control point at the scene of a remote broadcast. Under the applicable technical rules, the operating bandwidth for LPAS operations may not exceed 200 kHz, and the maximum transmitter power is 1 watt. Several manufacturers have developed wireless microphones that use this band.
65. In the
66. The Commission also proposed expanding eligibility in the 944-952 MHz band to include all of the entities currently eligible under part 74 for licensed operation of LPAS devices in the TV bands, given that their wireless microphone needs are similar to those of broadcasters and broadcast network entities. It asked whether technical limitations and other considerations should be weighed when assessing expansion of licensee eligibility in this band to ensure that such eligibility expansion would not be problematic for existing LPAS operations in this band.
67. Consistent with this record and in accord with adoption of the ETSI standard on emission masks for LPAS devices in the TV bands, the Commission will require that emissions from analog and digital wireless microphones comply with the emission masks in Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), for future wireless microphones that will use this band—applying these revised standards to new equipment certified under Part 74 in the 944-952 MHz band 9 months after issuance of the
68. Licensed LPAS users operating in the 944-952 MHz band (as in the TV bands) are subject to the frequency selection requirements contained in § 74.803 of its Rules. The Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) runs a local frequency coordination program for this band and asserts that coordination would have to be mandatory in order to avoid interference among different licensees. Accordingly, the Commission will also require wireless microphone users seeking access to this band to coordinate their proposed use through the local SBE coordinator.
69. The two bands immediately adjacent to 944-952 MHz band—the 941-944 MHz and the 952-960 MHz bands—are licensed for fixed services in varying bandwidths (from 12.5 kHz up to 200 kHz) in different areas and segments of these eleven megahertz. Most of the spectrum in these two bands is licensed for Private Operational Fixed (including business industrial and public safety) and Common Carrier Fixed Microwave Services authorized under part 101, and fixed Aural Broadcast Auxiliary Services (STL and ICR) authorized under part 74, while smaller portions are authorized for Multiple Address Systems (MAS), which consist of point-to-multipoint
70. Specifically, most of the 941-944 MHz band—the two and a half megahertz between 941.5-944 MHz—is available for licensing for Private and Common Carrier Fixed Microwave Services or for broadcast auxiliary stations. Fixed point-to-point links in these bands are typically used for long distance low data-rate links between locations that have line of sight capability. They employ directional antennas and operate with fairly high effective isotropic radiated power. Receive antennas are also directional, affording some rejection of unwanted signals off-axis from the main lobe of the antenna. The other portion, the half megahertz between 941-941.5 MHz, is authorized for MAS operations, specifically communications from MAS master stations to remote stations; consequently, transmission from the master station is generally omni-directional, generally within a 25-mile radius, to many remote stations. MAS historically has been used by the power, petroleum, and security industries for various alarm, control, interrogation and status reporting requirements as well as by the paging industry, and the licensing scheme adopted by the Commission was designed to accommodate these past and present uses. MAS licenses in this band are either geographically-based or site-based.
71. Most of the 952-960 MHz band—6.8 megahertz of spectrum between 952.85-956.25 MHz and 956.45-959.85 MHz—is licensed for Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service (including business industrial and public safety) authorized under part 101. The remaining portions of the band are also authorized for MAS operations in three distinct portions, totaling 1.2 megahertz. The MAS bands are divided into two groups with differing licensing and service characteristics; these are commonly known as the 928/952/956 band—used for private internal or public safety communications, and the 928/959 MHz band—used by CMRS and paging network incumbents. The MAS portions of these bands have historically been used by the power, petroleum, and security industries for various Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) operations as well as by the paging industry. These licenses also could be either geographically-based or site-based.
72. In the
73. The Commission also sought comment on designing rules that would be necessary to address any interference concerns with particular incumbent operations that could arise. It asked whether certain types of services, such as fixed microwave services, would generally not be prone to interference, and whether others, such as MAS operations involving SCADA operations, could be more susceptible to interference and require more protected rules (
74. Based on the record before us, the Commission will open most of the 941-944 and 952-960 MHz bands—the 2.5 megahertz of spectrum between 941.5-944 MHz and the 6.8 megahertz of spectrum between 952.85-956.25 MHz and 956.45-959.85 MHz—for use by wireless microphones and other LPAS license eligible entities currently operating in the TV broadcast bands and for whom it has expanded eligibility to operate in the 944-952 MHz bands. Because wireless microphones operate at low power over short distances, and fixed point-to-point systems employ directional antennas and operate with fairly high effective isotropic radiated power, the Commission believes that the risk of interference between LPAS operations and fixed point-to-point operations is low, and commenters generally agree with that conclusion. The Commission finds further support for its decision in parties' assurances that equipment to utilize these expanded bands could be brought to market quickly. Furthermore, it finds that LPAS operations in the these bands should be subject to the same part 74 technical rules that apply to LPAS operations in the 944-952 MHz band (
75. The Commission does not, however, open the remaining portions of the bands authorized for MAS operations, in three distinct portions totaling 1.7 megahertz, for licensed wireless microphone operations. Unlike with fixed point-to-point operations, it concludes that there is a greater risk of interference from a wireless microphone being operated at close proximity to a MAS remote station. Unlike fixed point-to-point operations (including BAS studio transmitter links), geographic area MAS licensees may add master and remote stations throughout their service area without prior Commission approval, and incumbent MAS licensees are allowed to expand their systems under certain circumstances. Given the record before the Commission, including the concerns of representatives of MAS interests, it concludes that proponents of using the MAS bands for wireless microphones have not demonstrated that they can coexist with MAS without causing interference. Furthermore, there is only a relatively small amount of spectrum in discrete segments potentially unused and available in this 1.7 megahertz.
76. The 902-928 MHz, 2.4 GHz (2400-2483.5 MHz), and 5 GHz (5725-5850 MHz) bands generally permit operations of unlicensed devices pursuant to two part 15 rules, 47 CFR 15.247 and 15.249. Wireless microphones are among the devices that operate on an unlicensed basis in these bands under these rules.
77. In the
78. The Commission concludes that although the use of these bands at this time may be more appropriate for certain types of wireless microphone applications, they nonetheless can support devices that are part of the suite of wireless microphone devices that accommodate the needs of various users. It also anticipates that further technological advances can make improvements in performance, and hence make use of these bands more attractive for meeting many wireless microphone users' needs. As noted above, the Commission did not propose to make any revisions of the rules applicable for a wide range of unlicensed uses in these bands, and decline here to make any revisions. It generally is not inclined to make changes to these rules without demonstrated need that changes would benefit the many users of these bands.
79. The 1920-1930 MHz band is allocated to Fixed and Mobile services on a primary basis and is designated for use by Unlicensed Personal Communications Service (UPCS) devices under the Commission's part 15 rules for unlicensed operations. To facilitate the sharing of spectrum in the UPCS band, the current rules require use of a “listen-before-transmit” protocol that specifies a process for monitoring the time and spectrum windows that a transmission is intended to occupy for signals above a defined threshold. Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) technology may be used in this band since it complies with the general rules for operating in this band. DECT-based radio technology facilitates voice, data, and networking applications with range requirements up to a few hundred meters. DECT technologies minimize interference and can be particularly effective for voice communications, and many manufacturers make wireless microphones that use this spectrum.
80. In the
81. As discussed above, wireless microphone manufacturers are finding ways under the existing rules to make use of this unlicensed band to address particular types of wireless microphone users' needs. The Commission encourages wireless microphone users to make use of this band where it can effectively serve their needs. It did not propose revisions to the rules in this band, and recognizing the many other applications that make use of this band, it will not make revisions at this time.
82. The 1435-1525 MHz band (1.4 GHz band) is shared by the Federal government and industry for aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT) operations. AMT systems are used for flight testing of manned and unmanned aircraft, missiles, and space vehicles, and associated communications such as range safety, chase aircraft, and weather data. The Department of Defense (DOD) is the major Federal user of the band, although the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) also have assignments within it. The commercial aviation industry uses the band for flight testing of new and modified commercial, corporate, and general aviation aircraft at various facilities across the United States. Both the FCC and NTIA recognize the Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) as the non-governmental coordinator for assignment of flight test frequencies in the band. Through the Special Temporary Authority (STA) process, professional sound engineering companies responsible for major event productions have obtained authority to operate both wireless microphones (and similar audio devices) and video equipment on a temporary basis (
83. In the
84. While the Commission sought to provide wireless microphone users in need of additional spectrum resources with access to the 1.4 GHz band spectrum to help accommodate those needs, it contemplated only limited use of this spectrum and did not propose to open it for either widespread or itinerant uses throughout the nation. In particular, the Commission proposed that wireless microphone uses be restricted to specific fixed locations, such as large venues (whether outdoor or indoor), where there may be a need to deploy large numbers of microphones (
85. In considering the appropriate framework for wireless microphone operations in the band, the Commission noted that it already permits secondary, low power short-range Medical Body Area Network (MBAN) devices to share use of another band where AMT operations are primary (
86. The Commission sought comment on requiring that wireless microphone systems, which often are moved from one location to another (
87. To the extent the Commission decided to authorize wireless microphone operations in this band, it sought comment on the technical rules that would apply to devices that would use the band, including considerations designed to ensure that the primary AMT operations would be protected. It asked whether the technical rules should be the similar to those that apply to wireless microphones that operate in other bands, as well as whether ETSI standards should be adopted for those devices. To preserve maximum flexibility for wireless microphone operations in the band, it inquired whether it should require wireless microphones to have the capability of tuning across the band, as well as whether wireless microphones designed to operate in the 1.4 GHz band should have modular transmitting components that, if necessary, could be replaced to enhance frequency agility. In addition, the Commission asked whether there should be an interim process for permitting wireless microphone operations in the band as any necessary new devices are being made, and what device certification process should be employed. Finally, consistent with its proposal, the Commission envisioned adding a secondary mobile except aeronautical mobile service allocation to the 1435-1525 MHz band for limited use under the service rules it adopts for the band.
88. As proposed in the
89. As proposed in the
90. Protection of primary service in the band by this new secondary service is of paramount importance. Wireless microphone use in the band must be coordinated with the non-governmental coordinator for assignment of flight test frequencies in the band (
91. The Commission is convinced that many of the elements that led to the successful adoption of the final MBAN service rules will also promote licensed secondary wireless microphone use of the 1.4 GHz band. Chief among these will be the cooperation of the AMT community in recognizing opportunities to share use of the band in those locations and times that will not interfere with the critical existing primary use, and the implementation of a coordination process to allow for such determinations in a timely and effective manner. However, the Commission recognizes that this coordination scenario is different from the MBANs case in that the secondary use will not be restricted to indoor locations in relatively limited and well-defined geographic places (
92. The Commission will leave the details of these matters for resolution at a future time, to be informed by further negotiation between manufacturers and the flight test community. It is also not mandating, at this time, the use of a specific coordinator or coordinators to represent the wireless microphone community (analogous to the MBAN coordinator). The decision as to whether such a coordinator may be appropriate for the professional licensed wireless microphone user base (and consideration of whether such a coordinator would provide sufficient user oversight so as to allow greater flexibility in how 1.4 GHz wireless microphone equipment may be designed) will be better informed after further discussion by the interested parties.
93. The Commission's intent is to provide a stable new environment for professional wireless microphone users, but it must also be mindful of the fact that, as noted above, wireless microphone use of the 1.4 GHz band will operate pursuant to a secondary allocation. In light of this regulatory status, and considering the history of wireless microphone users having to replace equipment as band availability has evolved, the Commission strongly encourages parties designing equipment for this band to incorporate design elements—such as modular transmitting components or wider tuning capability extending to other bands—that will allow the greatest future flexibility should regulatory circumstances ever change. The Commission reminds licensees and manufacturers that they will bear the future cost of any such changes and, therefore, that relatively small upfront costs to increase flexibility may prevent much greater costs associated with replacing equipment in the unforeseeable future. It intends to continue a dialog with the wireless microphone community so that licensees and manufacturers will be able to anticipate, well in advance, any new developments (
94. While the Commission concludes that the costs of the particular requirements it is establishing for wireless microphone use of the 1.4 GHz band are outweighed by the benefits of allowing licensed secondary use in a band that would otherwise not be available, it recognizes that the requirements are likely to limit 1.4 GHz wireless microphone use to a relatively limited community of professional users. The limited size of the user pool will facilitate coordinated use of the band and mitigate successfully AFTRCC's concerns regarding unauthorized users. The Commission also expects wireless microphone manufactures to continue to innovate and find further operational efficiencies, and believe that they will be able to draw on the experiences of MBAN proponents as they develop equipment designed to operate in the AMT space. Finally, because the Commission will continue to allow for the existing coordinated use of this band under the STA process, it is not establishing an interim process for permitting wireless microphone use under the new procedures pending the development of new equipment and final coordination and registration requirements.
95. In the
96. In April 2015, the Commission adopted rules for commercial use of 150 megahertz in the 3.5 GHz band,
97. As the Commission discussed in the
98. The 250 megahertz in the 7 GHz band is comprised of ten 25 megahertz channels. BAS and CARS licensees may be authorized to operate both fixed and mobile stations on any of these channels, and FS licensees on all but two of them (as noted above). The Commission has not otherwise adopted a formal, nationwide segmentation plan for the 7 GHz band to separate fixed and mobile operation. BAS and CARS licensees are authorized to operate on 25 megahertz channels, FS operators may be authorized to operate on 25 megahertz channels or on smaller channels of 5, 8.33 or 12.5 megahertz. Furthermore, all fixed BAS, CARS, and part 101 FS stations must engage in the same frequency coordination process required of all part 101 services, whereas temporary fixed or mobile TV pickup services continue to be subject to informal coordination procedures within their service areas.
99. In the
100. The Commission will permit BAS and CARS eligible entities, as well as the other entities eligible to hold LPAS licenses under part 74, to operate wireless microphones on a licensed, secondary basis in the 7 GHz band on two 25 megahertz channels that it will set aside for such use on the top and bottom channels of this band (6875-6900 MHz and 7100-7125 MHz). It declines to make the entire band available for wireless microphone use because there has been no demonstration that there is a need for all 250 megahertz of spectrum to be made available for wireless microphone use. The Commission is particularly concerned about compatibility between wireless microphones and itinerant BAS operations in the two channels reserved for nationwide use. SBE originally supported use of one 25 megahertz channel in the band, and by offering twice as much spectrum, the Commission hopes to create the necessary flexibility for wireless microphones to opportunistically find frequencies they can use on a secondary basis without interfering with, or receiving interference from, primary users with whom they must share and who typically operate at a higher power. Additionally, the Commission is reassured in its approach to the 7 GHz band by the commenters stating that equipment for these bands is readily available internationally and could be easily brought to market. While Broadcast Sports, Incorporated (BSI) favored setting aside 13 megahertz spectrum segments only for wireless microphone use on a primary basis, the Commission declines to do so because the 7 GHz band should remain fully available for BAS, CARS, and point-to-point operations. It is concerned that granting LPAS exclusive or co-primary status could impede the growth of the important existing uses of the band. Furthermore, under the Commission's existing rules, LPAS users are required to avoid causing harmful interference to any other class of station authorized under its rules or the Table of Allocations. BSI has not explained why a different rule is necessary or appropriate in the 7 GHz band. Moreover, the Commission has endeavored to make two 25 megahertz channels available at the top and bottom of the band (more than BSI requested) so that wireless microphones will have additional flexibility to select specific frequencies within the channel that will not cause interference to other services in the bands.
101. With respect to coordination, generally, in lieu of mandating specific interference criteria in its rules, the Commission expects applicants and licensees to work out interference issues in the frequency coordination process. FS, BAS, and CARS (other than mobile or temporary fixed operations) already operate in the 7 GHz band subject to a formal Part 101 coordination process pursuant to which all fixed station applicants must provide affected licensees and contemporaneous applicants with 30-day prior notification and an opportunity to participate in frequency coordination before filing their applications with the Commission. Mobile and temporary fixed stations are generally coordinated through local SBE coordinators pursuant to the requirements in section 74.638(d). The Commission will require new wireless microphone operations in the band to coordinate their operations through the local SBE coordinator. It will permit licensees to aggregate channels in these bands for wider-band transmission. Finally, it will apply the same part 74 technical rules applicable to wireless microphones in the TV broadcast bands to their operations in these bands, require that wireless microphones comply with the emission masks in Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08) and will require
102. The Commission's rules for ultra-wideband (UWB) unlicensed devices are set forth in part 15, subpart F. Operating pursuant to the technical rules set forth in part 15, UWB devices can use spectrum occupied by existing radio services without causing harmful interference, thereby permitting scarce spectrum resources to be used more efficiently. Wireless microphones operating under these rules would be required to operate pursuant to the UWB rules for communications systems, which permit operations in the 3.1-10.6 GHz band. Under the UWB rules, these devices must be designed to ensure that operation can occur indoors only, or must consist of hand-held devices that may be employed for such activities as peer-to-peer operation. The Commission noted that at least one wireless microphone manufacturer has developed and markets wireless microphones that operate under these rules.
103. In the
104. While the Commission did not propose, nor is it adopting, any changes to these rules, it does encourage further developments that can enable various wireless microphone applications to meet particular consumers' needs. Any changes to the existing rules would require much more extensive technical justification and analyses, as an initial matter, which are not before the Commission.
105. In the
106. The Commission declines to take any action with respect to 2020-2025 MHz at this time. In the
107. This Report and Order contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
108. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
109. In this Report and Order, we take several actions to accommodate wireless microphone users' needs in the coming years. Many types of users employ wireless microphones in a variety of settings. Wireless microphone operations range from professional uses, with the need for numerous high-performance microphones along with other microphones, to the need for a handheld microphone to transmit voice communications, to a range of different uses and needs for different numbers of microphones in different settings. Through these actions, we seek to enable wireless microphone users to have access to a suite of devices that operate effectively and efficiently in different spectrum bands and can address their respective needs.
110. We adopt several changes in our rules for operations in the TV bands, where most wireless microphone operations occur today. With respect to the TV bands, we revise our rules to provide more opportunities to access spectrum by allowing greater use of the VHF channels and more co-channel
111. There were no public comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.
112. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
113. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
114. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.
115. Low Power Auxiliary Station (LPAS) Licensees. Existing LPAS operations are intended for uses such as wireless microphones, cue and control communications, and synchronization of TV camera signals. These low power auxiliary stations transmit over distances of approximately 100 meters.
116.
117.
118.
119. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included.
120. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 396.
121. There are also 2,414 low power television stations, including Class A stations and 4,046 television translator stations.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132. However, we note that many of the licensees in these services are individuals, and thus are not small entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared nature of the spectrum utilized in many of these services, the Commission lacks direct information upon which to base a more specific estimation of the number of small entities under an SBA definition that might be directly affected by our action.
133.
134.
135. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to that extent. Also, as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
136.
137. In this proceeding, we invited comment on potential revisions to the existing rules for part 74 wireless microphone (and other LPAS) operations in the spectrum that will remain allocated for TV services following the repacking process. Specifically, we invited comment on revisions to the technical rules for LPAS operations on the VHF band; on permitting licensed LPAS operations on channels in locations closer to the television stations (including within the DTV contour), without the need for coordination, provided that the television signal falls below specified technical thresholds; on adoption of the ETSI emission mask standard for analog and digital wireless microphones; and general comment on other potential revisions concerning licensed LPAS operations in the TV bands.
138. We understand the importance of the 944-952 MHz band for broadcasters as well as other licensed, professional wireless microphone users. Consistent with this record and in accord with adoption of the ETSI standard for LPAS devices in the TV bands. we also adopt the ETSI standards EN 300 422-1, section 8.3.1.2 for analog emissions and section 8.3.2.2 for digital emissions uniformly for future wireless microphones that will use this band—applying these revised standards to new
139. Licensed LPAS users operating in the 944-952 MHz band (as in the TV bands) are subject to the frequency selection requirements contained in section 74.803 of our rules.
140.
141. Further, we expect all manufacturers of wireless microphones to make significant efforts to ensure that all users of such equipment capable of operating in the 600 MHz Band are fully informed of the decisions affecting them, as set forth in the
142. In addition, we urge all manufacturers to offer rebates and trade-in programs for any 600 MHz Band wireless microphones, and widely publicize these programs to ensure that all users of wireless microphones are fully informed. To the extent manufacturers do not offer a rebate or trade-in program for 600 MHz Band wireless microphones, we strongly encourage them to create or re-establish such programs. In contacting dealers and distributors, we expect manufacturers to inform these entities that they should: (1) Inform all customers who have purchased wireless microphones that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz Band of our decision to clear the 600 MHz Band of such devices; (2) post such information on their Web sites; (3) include this information in all other sales literature; (4) provide information in sales literature, including on their Web sites, on the availability of any manufacturer rebate offerings and trade-in programs related to wireless microphones operating in the 600 MHz Band; and (5) comply with the disclosure requirements that we are adopting in this Report and Order.
143.
144. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
145. The rule revisions that we are adopting provide additional opportunities for licensed wireless microphone users, both in frequency bands in which they currently operate and in additional frequency bands. The majority of these changes are permissive, meaning that wireless microphone manufacturers may choose to incorporate new capabilities in future devices. We adopt rules to establish cutoff dates for the certification, manufacturing and marketing of licensed wireless microphones in the 600 MHz band repurposed for wireless services following the incentive auction. We will no longer accept applications to certify licensed wireless microphones that operate in the 600 MHz band nine months after the release of the
146. The Office of Federal Register (OFR) recently revised the regulations to require that agencies must discuss in the preamble of the rule ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b). In accordance with OFR's requirements, the discussion in this section summarizes ETSI standard. The following document is available from the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, 650 Route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France, or at
Congressional Review Act: The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
147. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 302, 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 302a, 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r), this Report and Order
148. Parts 2, 15, 74, 87, and 90 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR parts 2, 15, 74, 87, and 90, ARE AMENDED as set forth in the final rules.
149. The rules adopted herein
150. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,
151. Pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and section 1.925 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.925, that the waiver request filed on July 16, 2009 and revised on September 23, 2009 by the Nuclear Energy Institute and the United Telecom Council for waiver of parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's
152. Pursuant to section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. prepare the specific language that must be used in the Consumer Disclosure, as set forth in this Report 47
Communication equipment and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Communications equipment, Incorporation by reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Communication equipment, Education, Incorporation by reference, and Report and recordkeeping requirements.
Commination equipment and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Communication equipment, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2, 15, 74, 87, and 90 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
The revision and addition read as follows:
US84 In the band 1435-1525 MHz, low power auxiliary stations may be authorized on a secondary basis, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in 47 CFR part 74, subpart H.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307, 336, 554a and 549.
(i) [Reserved]
(j) [Reserved]
(k)
(1) Such persons must display the consumer disclosure text, as specified by the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at the point of sale or lease of each such unlicensed wireless microphone. The text must be displayed in a clear, conspicuous, and readily legible manner. One way to fulfill the requirement in this section is to display the consumer disclosure text in a prominent manner on the product box by using a label (either printed onto the box or otherwise affixed to the box), a sticker, or other means. Another way to fulfill this requirement is to display the text immediately adjacent to each unlicensed wireless microphone offered for sale or lease and clearly associated with the model to which it pertains.
(2) If such persons offer such unlicensed wireless microphones via direct mail, catalog, or electronic means, they shall prominently display the consumer disclosure text in close proximity to the images and descriptions of each such unlicensed wireless microphone. The text should be in a size large enough to be clear, conspicuous, and readily legible, consistent with the dimensions of the advertisement or description.
(3) If such persons have Web sites pertaining to these unlicensed wireless microphones, the consumer disclosure text must be displayed there in a clear, conspicuous, and readily legible manner (even in the event such persons do not sell unlicensed wireless microphones directly to the public).
(4) The consumer disclosure text described in paragraph (k)(1) of this section is set forth as an appendix to this section.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 336, and 554.
The specific frequencies will be determined in light of further proceedings pursuant to GN Docket No. 12-268 and the rules will be updated accordingly pursuant to a future public notice.
(a)(1) Frequencies within the following bands may be assigned for use by low power auxiliary stations:
(2) [Reserved]
(b) * * *
(2) Low power auxiliary stations may operate closer to co-channel TV broadcast stations than the distances specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section provided that such operations either—
(i) Are coordinated with TV broadcast stations that could be affected by the low power auxiliary station operation, and coordination is completed prior to operation of the low power auxiliary station; or
(ii) Are limited to an indoor location that is not being used for over-the-air television viewing, and the following conditions are met with respect to the TV channel used: The TV signal falls below a threshold of −84 dBm over the entire channel; the signal is scanned across the full 6 megahertz channel where the wireless microphones would be operated; and to the extent that directional antennas are used, they are rotated to the place of maximum signal.
(c) In the 941.500-952.000 MHz, 952.850-956.250 MHz, 956.45-959.85
(d) In the 1435-1525 MHz band, low power auxiliary stations (LPAS) are limited to operations at specific fixed locations that have been coordinated with the frequency coordinator for aeronautical mobile telemetry, the Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Committee. LPAS devices must complete authentication and location verification before operation begins, employ software-based controls or similar functionality to prevent devices in the band from operating except in the specific channels, locations, and time periods that have been coordinated, and be capable of being tuned to any frequency in the band. Use is limited to situations where there is a need to deploy large numbers of LPAS for specified time periods, and use of other available spectrum resources is insufficient to meet the LPAS licensee's needs at the specific location. All LPAS devices operating in a particular area in the band may have access to no more than 30 megahertz of spectrum in the band at a given time.
The license for a low power auxiliary station authorizes the transmission of cues and orders to production personnel and participants in broadcast programs, motion pictures, and major events or productions and in the preparation therefor, the transmission of program material by means of a wireless microphone worn by a performer and other participants in a program, motion picture, or major event or production during rehearsal and during the actual broadcast, filming, recording, or event or production, or the transmission of comments, interviews, and reports from the scene of a remote broadcast. Low power auxiliary stations operating in the 941.5-952 MHz, 952.850-956.250 MHz, 956.45-959.85 MHz, 6875-6900 MHz, and 7100-7125 MHz bands may, in addition, transmit synchronizing signals and various control signals to portable or hand-carried TV cameras which employ low power radio signals in lieu of cable to deliver picture signals to the control point at the scene of a remote broadcast.
(a) * * *
(6) Licensees and conditional licensees of stations in the Broadband Radio Service as defined in section 27.1200 of this chapter, or entities that hold an executed lease agreement with a Broadband Radio Service or Educational Broadband Service licensee.
(d) Cable television operations, motion picture and television program producers, large venue owners or operators, and professional sound companies may be authorized to operate low power auxiliary stations in the bands allocated for TV broadcasting, the 941.500-952.000 MHz band, the 952.850-956.250 MHz band, the 956.45-959.85 MHz band, the 1435-1525 MHz band, the 6875-6900 MHz band, and the 7100-7125 MHz band. In the 6875-6900 MHz and 7100-7125 MHz bands, entities eligible to hold licenses for cable television relay service stations (see section 78.13 of this chapter) shall also be eligible to hold licenses for low power auxiliary stations.
(i) Nine months after the release of the Commission's Channel Reassignment Public Notice issued pursuant to Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Report and Order, GN Docket No. 12-268, 29 FCC Rcd 6567 (2014), applications for certification shall no longer be accepted for low power auxiliary stations or wireless video assist devices that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band or the 600 MHz guard bands, or for low power auxiliary stations that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz duplex gap unless the operations are limited to the four megahertz segment from one to five megahertz above the lower edge of the 600 MHz duplex gap.
(j) Eighteen months after the release of the Commission's Channel Reassignment Public Notice issued pursuant to Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Report and Order, GN Docket No. 12-268, 29 FCC Rcd 6567 (2014), no person shall manufacture, import, sell, lease, offer for sale or lease, or ship low power auxiliary stations or wireless video assist devices that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band or the 600 MHz guard bands, or low power auxiliary stations that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz duplex gap unless the operations are limited to the four megahertz segment from one to five megahertz above the lower edge of the 600 MHz duplex gap. This prohibition does not apply to devices manufactured solely for export.
(k) Eighteen months after the release of the Commission's Channel Reassignment Public Notice issued pursuant to Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Report and Order, GN Docket No. 12-268, 29 FCC Rcd 6567 (2014), any person who manufactures, sells, leases, or offers for sale or lease low power auxiliary stations or wireless video assist devices that are destined for non-U.S. markets and that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band or the 600 MHz guard bands, or low power auxiliary stations that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz duplex gap unless such operations are limited to the four megahertz segment from one to five megahertz above the lower edge of the 600 MHz duplex gap, shall include labeling and make clear in all sales, marketing, and packaging materials, including online materials, relating to such devices that the devices cannot be operated in the United States.
(l)
(1) Such persons must display the consumer disclosure text, as specified by the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at the point of sale or lease of each such low power auxiliary station or wireless video assist device. The text must be displayed in a clear, conspicuous, and readily legible manner. One way to fulfill the requirement in this section is to display the consumer disclosure text in a prominent manner on the product box by using a label (either printed onto the box or otherwise affixed to the box), a sticker, or other means. Another way to fulfill this requirement is to display the text immediately adjacent to each low power auxiliary station or wireless video assist device offered for sale or lease and clearly associated with the model to which it pertains.
(2) If such persons offer such low power auxiliary stations or wireless video assist device via direct mail, catalog, or electronic means, they shall prominently display the consumer disclosure text in close proximity to the images and descriptions of each such low power auxiliary station or wireless video assist device. The text should be in a size large enough to be clear, conspicuous, and readily legible, consistent with the dimensions of the advertisement or description.
(3) If such persons have Web sites pertaining to these low power auxiliary stations or wireless video assist devices, the consumer disclosure text must be displayed there in a clear, conspicuous, and readily legible manner (even in the event such persons do not sell low power auxiliary stations or wireless video assist devices directly to the public).
(4) The consumer disclosure text described in paragraph (l)(1) of this section is set forth as an appendix to this section.
(d) * * *
(1) For all bands except the 1435-1525 MHz band, the maximum transmitter power which will be authorized is 1 watt. In the 1435-1525 MHz band, the maximum transmitter power which will be authorized is 250 milliwatts. Licensees may accept the manufacturer's power rating; however, it is the licensee's responsibility to observe specified power limits.
(2) If a low power auxiliary station employs amplitude modulation, modulation shall not exceed 100 percent on positive or negative peaks.
(3) For the 26.1-26.480 MHz, 161.625-161.775 MHz, 450-451 MHz, and 455-456 MHz bands, the occupied bandwidth shall not be greater than that necessary for satisfactory transmission and, in any event, an emission appearing on any discrete frequency outside the authorized band shall be attenuated, at least, 43+10 log
(4)(i) For the 941.5-952 MHz, 952.850-956.250 MHz, 956.45-959.85 MHz, 1435-1525 MHz, 6875-6900 MHz and 7100-7125 MHz bands, analog emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in
(ii) For the 941.5-952 MHz, 952.850-956.250 MHz, 956.45-959.85 MHz, and 1435-1525 MHz bands, digital emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in
(iii) In the 6875-6900 MHz and 7100-7125 MHz bands, digital emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in
(iv) For the 944-952 MHz band, the requirements of this paragraph (d)(4) shall not apply to the applications for certification of equipment for that band until nine months after release of the Commission's Channel Reassignment Public Notice, as defined in section 73.3700(a)(2) of this chapter.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) 54-72, 76-88, and 174-216 MHz bands: 50 mW EIRP
(ii) 470-608 and 614-698: 250 mW conducted power
(7) Analog emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in
(i) The materials listed in this section are incorporated by reference in this part. These incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in these materials will be published in the
(1) European Telecommunications Standards Institute, 650 Route des
(i) ETSI EN 300 422-1 V1.4.2 (2011-08): “
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved].
47 U.S.C. 154, 303 and 307(e), unless otherwise noted.
(d)(1) Frequencies in the band 1435-1525 MHz are also available for low power auxiliary station use on a secondary basis.
Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
(b) The following frequencies are available for wireless microphone operations to eligibles in this part, subject to the provisions of this paragraph:
(1) On center frequencies 169.475 MHz, 170.275 MHz, 171.075 MHz, and 171.875 MHz, the emission bandwidth shall not exceed 200 kHz. On the other center frequencies listed in this paragraph (b), the emission bandwidth shall not exceed 54 kHz.
(3) For emissions with a bandwidth not exceeding 54 kHz, the frequency stability of wireless microphones shall limit the total emission to within ±32.5 kHz of the assigned frequency. Emissions with a bandwidth exceeding 54 kHz shall comply with the emission mask in Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08).
(f) The materials listed in this section are incorporated by reference in this part. These incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in these materials will be published in the
(1) European Telecommunications Standards Institute, 650 Route des Lucioles, 06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France. A copy of the standard is also available at
(i) ETSI EN 300 422-1 V1.4.2 (2011-08): “
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document resolves the remaining technical issues affecting the operation of new 600 MHz wireless licensees and broadcast television stations in areas where they operate on the same or adjacent channels in geographic proximity. Specifically, the Commission adopted the methodology and the regulatory framework for the protection of both wireless services and broadcasting in the post-auction environment that it proposed in October 2014. The Commission affirms its decision regarding the methodology to be used during the incentive auction to predict inter-service interference between broadcasting and wireless services. The Commission also affirmed its decision declining to adopt a cap on the aggregate amount of new interference a broadcast television station may receive from other television stations in the repacking process.
Effective December 17, 2015, except for the amendments to §§ 27.1310 and 73.3700(b)(1)(iv)(B), which contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Aspasia Paroutsas, 202-418-7285,
This is a summary of the Commission's
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
1. In the
2. In the
3. In the
4. In the
5. The Commission adopts a zero percent threshold for harmful interference from wireless operations to the reception of television station's signals in the 600 MHz Band. Under this standard, 600 MHz wireless licensees will not be permitted to cause harmful interference at any level within the noise-limited contour of a full power television station or the protected contour of a Class A television station to the degree it affects populated areas within those contours. The Commission finds that a zero percent threshold, with no rounding tolerance, is warranted in the post-auction environment. For the reasons discussed below, any interference standard other than zero presents practical difficulties given the multiple sources of potential interference to the reception of signals from television stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band and the continuing evolution of wireless networks. Furthermore, the Commission delegates authority to the Media Bureau to issue a Public Notice following completion of the incentive auction with the final contours of all television stations assigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band. The Public Notice will include the technical parameters by which the television station contours can be generated regardless of whether the station will remain on its pre-auction channel or has been reassigned to new a channel.
6. There will be numerous sources of potential interference to the reception of signals from television stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band because the five-megahertz wireless spectrum blocks will overlap in varying degrees with the six-megahertz television channels, creating the potential for multiple co- and adjacent-channel relationships between television stations and wireless operations in the same or nearby geographic areas. Moreover, wireless networks evolve over time with the deployment of additional base stations and the adjustment of base stations' technical parameters. Addressing the possibility of a television receiver receiving interference from multiple wireless networks that are continuously evolving presents significant practical difficulties, such as how to apportion the permitted interference among the
7. The Commission clarifies that the zero-percent interference threshold will prohibit 600 MHz wireless licensees from causing any interference to television receivers in any populated area of the noise-limited contour of a full power television station or the protected contour of a Class A television station. The Commission also adopts the proposal from the
8.
9.
10. In addition, the Commission removes the “α” factor in the D/U threshold in OET-74 as adopted when there is no overlap between the DTV signal and LTE signal (adjacent channel) in order to be consistent with the approach followed in the Commission's rules for DTV-to-DTV interference. The Commission's rules specify a constant D/U threshold for DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel interference. Consequently, OET-74 will not use a D/U threshold that varies with “α” for adjacent channel LTE-to-DTV interference. Also, OET-74 will set the required D/U threshold for LTE-to-DTV interference to -33 dB because the ATSC receiver guidelines specify that DTV receivers should have this level of tolerance of adjacent channel DTV interference, and measurements have shown that actual DTV receivers do in fact meet or exceed this level of performance in the presence of adjacent channel LTE interference.
11.
12.
13. The Commission does not expect that the potential for interference from intermodulation products from a DTV signal and an LTE signal or from two LTE signals will be significantly higher than that expected from two DTV signals. In addition, potential intermodulation interference can be mitigated through DTV receiver design, antenna reorientation, and other factors. In order to meet consumers' expectations, receiver manufacturers should design their products to operate without experiencing interference from signals permitted by the Commission's rules. To the extent that CEA and manufacturers believe that current models of DTV receivers are susceptible to IM3, the appropriate solution is for them to design their new products to be immune to such interference.
14.
15.
16. The Commission also rejects NAB's suggestion that OET-74 consider interference in all cells, and not only the populated cells. OET-74 will consider interference harmful only if the D/U ratio is below the threshold in a cell containing population.
17. In addition, the Commission rejects NAB's argument that OET-74 should not rely on manufacturers' published antenna patterns for wireless base stations. According to NAB, the manufacturers' published patterns may suggest unrealistically superior performance, while the wireless licensee may adjust the antenna after installation to manage coverage or interference conditions, or the antenna alignment during installation may be imprecise. While the Commission is cognizant that wireless base station antenna installations may vary from the antenna manufacturer's specified patterns or may be misaligned, it sees no reason to modify the manufacturer's specified wireless base station antenna patterns based on NAB's assumptions, which may or may not be more accurate for any given base station installation.
18. The Commission disagrees with Cohen, Dippell, and Everist, P.C.'s (“CDE”) claim that the FCC has not forecasted the potential interference to television receivers in cases where five megahertz 600 MHz licenses are aggregated. Given the DTV receiver performance measurements in the record and the fact that OET-74 is applicable to aggregated channels, CDE fails to articulate the need for additional testing of the effects of inter-service interference where five megahertz wireless licenses are aggregated. Nevertheless, based on examination of the record, the Commission concludes that the proposal for a separate analysis for each frequency overlap when two five-megahertz blocks are aggregated into a ten megahertz block would require additional effort by the wireless licensee without providing increased protection for DTV signal reception compared with a combined analysis of aggregated five megahertz blocks. For this reason, OET-74 will require that only a single interference analysis be performed when five megahertz blocks are aggregated. Therefore, in cases of aggregated wireless blocks the OET-74 analysis will be adjusted to reflect the amount of spectral overlap between the aggregated wireless signal and the DTV channel and the effective radiated power (“ERP”) as described. When the aggregated wireless signal completely overlaps the DTV channel, the analysis will use the values in the OET-74 tables associated with a spectral overlap of five megahertz and the ERP that is the portion of the power in the aggregated wireless signal that overlaps the six megahertz television channel. When the aggregated wireless signal overlaps the DTV channel by five megahertz or less, the analysis will use the values in the OET-74 tables associated with the amount of spectral overlap and the ERP of the overlapping wireless five megahertz block (
19. The Commission adopts fixed geographic separation distances for Case 4. Specifically, 600 MHz wireless licensees will be required to limit the service area of their wireless networks so that wireless user equipment (
20. As proposed in the
21. The Commission finds that prohibiting wireless base stations from
22. The Commission declines CTIA's request that the required use of OET-74 apply only to 600 MHz wireless licenses that have been formally designated as impaired during the incentive auction. Rather, as proposed, the OET-74 analysis must be performed for any base station located within the culling distance, even if the license was not identified as impaired during the auction. Qualified forward auction bidders will be provided information about the degree of impairment to the license, but such impairments will be estimated using the ISIX Methodology based on assumptions of a hypothetical wireless network deployment. Post-auction, the Commission's inter-service interference methodology will be based on the actual interference environment to protect DTV receivers. The Commission notes that qualified forward auction bidders will be able to determine prior to bidding whether they will be subject to regulatory requirements for a particular license because it will provide them with specific information about the television stations that will potentially cause impairments to wireless licenses (including the facility ID) prior to each stage of the auction.
23. The Commission rejects CTIA's claims that the OET-74 methodology is burdensome and impractical. A new OET-74 analysis will be required only if a base station modification could result in an increase in energy in the direction of a full power or Class A television station's contour. CTIA's concerns over the number of base stations subject to the OET-74 analysis, especially with the deployment of small cell architectures, are exaggerated. Antennas at lower power and lower height as found in small cell architectures result in shorter culling distances, as small as three kilometers in some cases, thereby reducing the likelihood that an OET-74 analysis will have to be performed for small cell antennas.
24. The Commission will require a 600 MHz wireless licensee to retain the latest copy of its OET-74 interference analysis for each co-channel or adjacent channel partial economic area (“PEA”) license area where any of its base stations fall within the specified OET-74 culling distances. The wireless licensee will be required to make this analysis available for inspection by the Commission at any time and to make this analysis available to a television station upon request when there are complaints of interference either from the subject television station or a station viewer. The Commission rejects NAB's request that wireless licensees be required to send all of their OET-74 analyses to all potentially affected broadcasters. The Commission finds that requiring wireless licensees to retain their most recent OET-74 analyses, which they may store electronically, and make them available in cases of interference complaints will more efficiently assist in the investigation and resolution of any complaints.
25. The Commission adopts the proposal to require wireless licensees to eliminate any actual harmful interference to television reception within the contours of a full power or Class A television station in the 600 MHz Band, even if OET-74 did not predict such interference. The Commission also adopts the proposal for handling such interference incidents. As proposed in the
26. The Commission declines CDE's requests that it create a toll-free number and a Web site for consumers to report potential inter-service interference problems or that it create an interference handbook that demonstrates how a television viewer may face interference. Instead, the Commission will rely on the framework described above, which requires television stations experiencing interference problems to contact wireless licensees to resolve the potential interference issues.
27. A 600 MHz wireless licensee will hold a license for its entire PEA service area, but its operations will be limited only to those portions of the PEA where the licensee will not cause harmful interference to the reception of signals from television stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band consistent with the standards set forth above.
28. As discussed in the
29. In this section, the Commission adopts rules to ensure that 600 MHz wireless licenses obtained in the forward auction do not experience additional impairments following the incentive auction.
30. The Commission limits full-power and Class A television stations assigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band from expanding their noise-limited and protected contours, respectively, if doing so would increase the impairments to co-channel or adjacent channel 600 MHz wireless licenses, unless an agreement is reached with the co-channel or adjacent channel wireless licensee allowing for such expansion. For purposes of this limitation, impairments refer to both additional interference from a television station anywhere in the 600 MHz Band in a PEA (Cases 1 and 2), and to any increased restriction on wireless operations within a PEA in order to avoid causing harmful interference to television receivers within a television station's expanded contour (Cases 3 and 4). For purposes of this limitation, a television station's baseline contours are those set forth in its initial post-auction construction permit application. As the Commission stated in the
31. CEA argues for a set distance between the edge of a wireless license area and the contours of a co-channel or adjacent channel television station beyond which the television station would be allowed to expand. The Commission rejects this proposal because the appropriate distance would depend largely on factors like transmitted power, antenna height, and antenna pattern, as well as terrain and frequency overlap, that vary by station. However, if the distance between the proposed expanded contour and a co-channel or adjacent channel wireless licensee's service area is greater than 500 kilometers, the television station will not be required to make a showing that its expanded contour does not cause additional impairments to the wireless operations.
32. As set forth in the
33. For this analysis, 600 MHz licensees will use the threshold values for the prediction of interference from full power television to wireless operations from the ISIX Methodology. With regard to adjacent channel interference, LPTV and TV translator stations are allowed to operate using either the same emission mask as a full power station or one of the other two alternative emission masks specified in the Commission's rules. The Commission analyzed the frequency dependent rejection (“FDR”) performance of wireless receivers in the presence of DTV signals using the three different emission masks and found that there is only a 1 dB difference in the threshold values for adjacent channel interference to the wireless service across the three masks, for both wireless base stations and user equipment. The Commission does not find this 1 dB difference to be significant enough to warrant using separate thresholds for each emission mask option. Therefore, the Commission adopts the same field strengths for co-channel and adjacent channel emissions from LPTV and TV translator stations to wireless service as the ISIX Methodology provides for full power television stations. The Commission will also use the antenna elevation patterns for LPTV and TV translator stations in the Consolidated Database System (CDBS) or LMS (Licensing and Management System), the successor system to CDBS. If CDBS/LMS does not include elevation pattern values for a given LPTV or TV translator station, the elevation pattern of these stations as they are defined in section 74.793(d) of the Commission's rules will apply. The Commission finds that the more conservative F(50,10) measure is appropriate when 600 MHz wireless licensees use the ISIX Methodology to predict if they will experience interference from LPTV or translator stations.
34. The Commission will require that interference from analog LPTV and TV translator stations be analyzed using
35. The Commission adopts its proposal in the
36. Television stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band in the repacking process may not actually relocate to their assigned channel until late in the Post-Auction Transition Period. However, the Commission will not permit wireless licensees to deploy networks in the period before the station relocates in areas that will potentially interfere with these television stations once they commence broadcasting. Consequently, television stations that have not yet constructed their new facilities will be protected from inter-service interference during the Post-Auction Transition
37. The Commission adopts its proposal to use the ISIX Methodology to identify impairments to repurposed 600 MHz spectrum along the international borders during the auction. During the incentive auction, the ISIX Methodology will be used to predict interference from U.S. television stations to Canadian wireless operators (Cases 1 and 2). In accordance with the U.S.-Canada
38. In the
39. In its Petition for Reconsideration, NAB claims that the ISIX Methodology will fail to predict wireless impairments “with any useful degree of accuracy” because wireless carriers will have to use a “different methodology” following the auction based on real-world deployments. NAB repeats its recommendation made in several of its filings in this proceeding that, instead of the ISIX Methodology, the Commission should use a fixed distance-based approach, because doing so would be “far easier to implement and will not sacrifice meaningful spectral efficiency.” The Commission denies NAB'S petition for reconsideration because NAB offers no basis to revisit its conclusion that the ISIX Methodology accommodates market variation in a more spectrally efficient manner than a fixed distance-based approach and disagree with NAB's claim that the decision to use a different methodology to predict inter-service interference after the auction calls into question the accuracy of the ISIX Methodology for predicting impairments during the auction. NAB also claims that the base station antenna heights and powers assumed in the ISIX Methodology are less than what is permitted by the Commission's rules and therefore understates the potential for interference. The Commission rejects this claim because it was fully considered and rejected when the ISIX R&O was adopted.
40. Sprint and NAB, sought reconsideration of the decision to use the F(50,50) statistical measure instead of the F(50,10) measure in the ISIX Methodology when estimating interference from television stations to wireless operations. The Commission denies Sprint's and NAB's Petitions for Reconsideration and affirms its conclusion that F(50,50) is an appropriate statistical measure for this purpose, whereas the F(50,10) measure is unnecessarily conservative. In any event, bidders in the forward auction will have the necessary information to make their own calculations of impairments based on any number of factors they wish to consider, including their choice of statistical parameter.
41. The Commission will revise the ISIX Methodology to reflect the adjustments to the D/U thresholds for the Case 3 interference scenario it adopted in the companion
42. The Commission also makes a number of miscellaneous changes to the ISIX Methodology. These changes were made to reflect updates and revisions of input values and software settings to improve functionality and to reflect the U.S.-Canada
• Updated references to the LPTV digital transition.
• Updated references to license categories which were adopted in the
• Revised references to emission limits and receiver standards in paragraph 13 to reflect the use of the FCC's emission limits for DTV and wireless receiver performance standards published by 3GPP.
• Provided threshold values for inter-service interference calculations in the repacking process along the border regions. These values do not relate to the computation of impairments on 600 MHz licenses.
• Added an explanation in paragraph 31 that for Case 3, the base station transmitter azimuth pattern is assumed to be non-directional and is based on UHF DTV vertical pattern described in OET Bulletin No. 69, Table 8. However, the elevation pattern is assumed to be symmetrical above and below the maximum.
• Table 14 lists the
• In Table 15, the entry HAS_EPAT was changed from “False” to “True” because
• Paragraph 38 updated to indicate that the elevation pattern for each base station must be imported in the XML file and lists the values for the symmetrical generic pattern.
43. In the
44. Because radio signals propagate differently on different frequencies, the signal of a station reassigned to a different channel will generally not be receivable in precisely the same locations within a station's contour as it was in its original channel. In its
45. In the event some stations are predicted to lose viewers as a result of new channel assignments even after optimization techniques are applied, there will be post-auction solutions to address this situation. First, as adopted in the
46. A cap on population loss resulting from new channel assignments as proposed by NAB would compromise the central objective of a successful auction to allow market forces to repurpose spectrum. NAB's proposed approach for incorporating its cap on population loss into the repacking process involves certain elements that are either infeasible or meaningless and, on the whole, would impede the Commission's ability to conduct a successful auction and thereby sacrifice the goal of repurposing spectrum.
47. The Commission denies Petitions for Reconsideration of the
48. Affiliates Associations also claims that the
49. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
50. In the
51. The Commission adopted a number of measures to protect television reception for those television stations that will remain in the 600 MHz Band after the incentive auction. It adopted a zero percent threshold for interference from wireless operations to the reception of signals from television broadcast stations in the 600 MHz Band, which will prohibit 600 MHz wireless licensees from causing harmful interference at any level within the contour of a broadcast station. The Commission also adopted OET-74, a methodology for predicting interference to television receivers from wireless base stations. However, the Commission modified the D/U threshold used to determine if interference to television reception is occurring in OET-74 from
52. The Commission also adopted measures to protect the future operations of 600 MHz Band wireless licensees from television stations that remain in the 600 MHz band. It will prohibit broadcast television licensees who operate in the 600 MHz Band from expanding their noise-limited or protected contours if doing so would increase the potential for interference to a wireless licensee's service area or would result in additional impairments to the wireless licenses because of the obligations of the wireless licensee to protect television reception. The Commission also adopted the use of the ISIX Methodology specified in the
53. Under the rules adopted in the
54. U.S. television stations may cause interference to Canadian wireless operations after the incentive auction. For purposes of predicting these impairments during the incentive auction, the Commission adopts the use of the ISIX Methodology with adjustments to reflect an agreement reached with Canada.
55. In the
56. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.
57. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
58. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
59.
60. The Commission notes, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included.
61. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (“NCE”) television stations to be 395.
62. There are also 2,414 LPTV stations, including Class A stations, and 4,046 TV translator stations.
63.
64.
65.
66. Wireless licensees in the 600 MHz Band will be required to conduct an interference analysis using OET-74 before operating a base station within the culling distance of the contour of a co-channel or adjacent channel broadcast television station. They will also be required to conduct an OET-74 interference analysis when making a modification to such a base station that could result in an increase in energy in the direction of broadcast station's contour. The wireless licensee will be required to retain the latest copy of their OET-74 analysis for each base station that is within the culling distance of a co-channel or adjacent channel broadcast station. The wireless licensee will be required to make this analysis available for inspection by the Commission at any time and to make this analysis available to a television station upon request when there are complaints of interference either from the subject television station or a station viewer. Wireless licensees and television stations will cooperate in good faith to resolve any disputes, as not to unreasonably frustrate wireless and broadcast operations. In the event the parties do not reach resolution, a broadcaster can submit a claim of harmful interference to the Commission.
67. Wireless licensees in the 600 MHz Band will be prohibited from operating a base station within the contour of a co-channel or adjacent channel broadcast station. Wireless licensees will also be required to limit their coverage areas so that mobile and portable devices
68. Wireless licensees will be required to eliminate any harmful interference that occurs to television reception within the contours of a co-channel or adjacent channel broadcast television station. This requirement to eliminate harmful interference applies even if the OET-74 analysis indicates that no harmful interference will occur.
69. A broadcast television station in the 600 MHz Band will not be allowed to expand its contour such that it would increase impairments to a wireless licensee either by causing additional interference to the wireless licensee's service area or because of the obligations of the wireless licensee to protect television reception, unless an agreement is reached with the wireless licensee allowing the expansion.
70. A wireless licensee that intends to commence operations will be required to use the ISIX Methodology adopted in the
71. Wireless licensees will use the ISIX Methodology or OET-74 to show that they are unable to operate in portions of their license area for purposes of satisfying their build-out requirements. They will use the ISIX Methodology for demonstrating harmful interference from co-channel and adjacent channel broadcast television stations to their base stations and user equipment as well as demonstrating harmful interference from wireless user equipment to television receivers. They will use OET-74 for demonstrating harmful interference from wireless base stations to television receivers.
72. A television station that will experience a loss in population served in excess of one percent as a result of the repacking process—either because of new station-to-station interference or terrain loss resulting from a new channel assignment (or a combination of both)—may file an application proposing an alternate channel or expanded facilities in a priority filing window. Previously, our rules permitted a station to file an application in the priority filing window only when the greater than one percent loss in population served was from station-to-station interference.
73. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
74. Many of the reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements we adopt here are designed to protect television broadcast stations and 600 MHz Band wireless licensees from harmful interference. Because many of these television broadcast stations and wireless licensees are small entities, the rules will protect the economic interest of small entities. Consequently, the effect of these rules on small entities can be viewed as a tradeoff between the compliance burdens of the rules on some small entities balanced against the interference protections supplied by the rules to other small entities. We conclude that the benefits of these rules in protecting small entities from interference is stronger than the compliance burdens that the rules place on small entities.
75. For example, the adopted rules require wireless licensees to conduct an OET-74 interference analysis before locating a base station within the culling distance of a co-channel or adjacent channel television broadcast station. This rule will impact those wireless licensees that are small entities by requiring them to perform the OET-74 analysis and potentially preventing them from constructing base stations in portions of their licensed service areas. However, this requirement will help prevent harmful interference to the reception of signals from co-channel and adjacent channel television broadcast stations, many of whom are small entities. As an alternative to requiring an OET-74 analysis, we could have specified an exclusion zone around a broadcast television station's contour that wireless base stations could not be located within to prevent interference to television reception. However, this would have excluded the base stations from a much larger area than the adopted rules because it would not have taken into account the effects that terrain has on signal propagation and the characteristics of the base stations such as transmitted power and antenna height. Requiring an OET-74 analysis instead of relying on an exclusion zone thereby enables the wireless licensee to use a greater portion of its licensed service area, which is of significant economic benefit to the wireless licensee.
76. As another example, the adopted rules prohibit television broadcast stations in the 600 MHz Band from expanding their contours in a way that will impair a wireless license by causing interference to a wireless licensee or because of a wireless licensee's obligation to protect television reception. This rule will impact television broadcast stations in the 600 MHz Band by preventing them from expanding their contours in the future, but the rule will protect the interests of wireless licensees by preventing impairments of their licenses.
77. Some of the rules adopted here provide a means to implement rules we have previously adopted. For example, in the
78. In the
79. To minimize the burdens on small businesses that are required by the rules we are adopting that require OET-74 and ISIX Methodology interference analyses, we intend to make a version of our
80. Television stations that are relocated during the incentive auction may experience a change in coverage area due to terrain loss because of the different propagation characteristics at their new frequency. Television stations that experience a loss in population served in excess of one percent as a result of the repacking process—either because of new station-to-station interference or terrain loss resulting from a new channel assignment (or a combination of both)—will now be permitted to file an application proposing an alternate channel or expanded facilities in a priority filing window. This will benefit television stations that experience such a loss of population serviced.
81. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the
82. Pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 6402 and 6403 of Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 332, 403, 1452, and 1454, the
83. The rules adopted herein
84. Pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the Petitions for Reconsideration of the
85. Pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and section 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the Petition for Reconsideration of the
86. Pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the Petitions for Reconsideration of the
87. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,
88. The Commission
Communications equipment, Radio, Television, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 27 and 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452, unless otherwise noted.
(a) Licensees authorized to operate wireless services in the 600 MHz band must cause no harmful interference to public reception of the signals of broadcast television stations transmitting co-channel or on an adjacent channel.
(1) Such wireless operations must comply with the D/U ratios in Table 5 in OET Bulletin No. 74, Methodology for Predicting Inter-Service Interference to Broadcast Television from Mobile Wireless Broadband Services in the UHF Band ([DATE]) (“
(2) If a 600 MHz band licensee causes harmful interference within the noise-limited contour or protected contour of a broadcast television station that is operating co-channel or on an adjacent channel, the 600 MHz band licensee must eliminate the harmful interference.
(b) A licensee authorized to operate wireless services in the 600 MHz downlink band:
(1) Is not permitted to deploy wireless base stations within the noise-limited contour or protected contour of a broadcast television station licensed on a co-channel or adjacent channel in the 600 MHz downlink band;
(2) Is required to perform an interference study using the methodology in
(3) Is required to perform an interference study using the methodology in
(4) Is required to maintain records of the latest
(c) A licensee authorized to operate wireless services in the 600 MHz uplink band must limit its service area so that mobile and portable devices do not transmit:
(1) Co-channel or adjacent channel to a broadcast television station within that station's noise-limited contour or protected contour;
(2) Co-channel to a broadcast television station within five kilometers of that station's noise-limited contour or protected contour; and
(3) Adjacent channel to a broadcast television station within 500 meters of that station's noise-limited contour or protected contour.
(d) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Broadcast television station is defined pursuant to § 73.3700(a)(1) of this chapter;
(2) Noise-limited contour is defined to be the full power station's noise-limited contour pursuant to § 73.622(e);
(3) Protected contour is defined to be a Class A television station's protected contour as specified in section 73.6010;
(4) Co-channel operations in the 600 MHz band are defined as operations of broadcast television stations and wireless services where their assigned channels or frequencies spectrally overlap;
(5) Adjacent channel operations are defined as operations of broadcast television stations and wireless services where their assigned channels or frequencies spectrally abut each other or are separated by up to 5 MHz.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) The licensee of any broadcast television station that the Commission makes all reasonable efforts to preserve pursuant to section 6403(b)(2) of the Spectrum Act that is predicted to experience a loss in population served in excess of one percent as a result of the repacking process, either because of new station-to-station interference or terrain loss resulting from a new channel assignment (or a combination of both), will be afforded an opportunity to submit an application for a construction permit pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section in the priority filing window required by paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A) of this section.
(i) A broadcast television station licensed in the 600 MHz band, as that band is defined in section 27.5(l)—
(1) Shall not be permitted to modify its facilities, except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, if such modification will expand its noise limited service contour (in the case of a full power station) or protected contour (in the case of a Class A station) in such a way as to:
(i) Increase the potential of harmful interference to a wireless licensee which is co-channel or adjacent channel to the broadcast television station; or
(ii) Require such a wireless licensee to restrict its operations in order to avoid causing harmful interference to the broadcast television station's expanded noise limited service or protected contour;
(2) Shall be permitted to modify its facilities, even when prohibited by paragraph (i)(1) of this section, if all the wireless licensees in paragraph (i)(1) who either will experience an increase in the potential for harmful interference or must restrict their operations in order to avoid causing interference agree to permit the modification and the modification otherwise meets all the requirements in this part;
(3) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(i) Co-channel operations in the 600 MHz band are defined as operations of broadcast television stations and wireless services where their assigned
(ii) Adjacent channel operations are defined as operations of broadcast television stations and wireless services where their assigned channels or frequencies spectrally abut each other or are separated by up to 5 MHz.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that certain center and outboard stowage bin modules were incorrectly installed. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the center and outboard stowage bin modules for missing parts, quick release pins that are not fully engaged, and parts that are installed in incorrect locations; and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly installed center and outboard stowage bin modules that might not remain intact during an emergency landing, resulting in injuries to occupants and interference with airplane evacuation.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 4, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed 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
Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917- 6585; fax: 425-917-6590; 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 certain center and outboard stowage bin modules were incorrectly installed on Model 787-8 airplanes. The affected stowage bin modules had parts that were missing or incorrectly installed and quick release pins that were not fully engaged. The missing and incorrectly installed parts included quick release pins, load transfer bars, tie rods, quick release pin retainers, radial struts, and splice fittings. Missing or incorrectly installed parts affect the load capability of a stowage bin, and during an emergency landing that stowage bin might not remain intact. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly installed center and outboard stowage bin modules that might not remain intact during an emergency landing, resulting in injuries to occupants and interference with airplane evacuation.
We reviewed the following Boeing service information. This service information describes procedures for inspecting the installation of the center and outboard stowage bin modules and doing corrective actions.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250036-00, Issue 001, dated September 10, 2013.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250039-00, Issue 001, dated October 8, 2013.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250040-00, Issue 001, dated October 14, 2013.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250041-00, Issue 001, dated October 18, 2013.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250042-00, Issue 001, dated October 28, 2013.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250043-00, Issue 001, dated November 4, 2013.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250044-00, Issue 001, dated November 8, 2013.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250045-00, Issue 001, dated November 15, 2013.
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 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. Refer to this service information for details on the procedures and compliance times.
The phrase “corrective actions” might be used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 6 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 these replacements.
According to the manufacturer, all 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 January 4, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in the service information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this AD.
(1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250036-00, Issue 001, dated September 10, 2013.
(2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250039-00, Issue 001, dated October 8, 2013.
(3) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250040-00, Issue 001, dated October 14, 2013.
(4) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250041-00, Issue 001, dated October 18, 2013.
(5) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250042-00, Issue 001, dated October 28, 2013.
(6) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250043-00, Issue 001, dated November 4, 2013.
(7) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250044-00, Issue 001, dated November 8, 2013.
(8) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250045-00, Issue 001, dated November 15, 2013.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a report that certain center and outboard stowage bin modules were incorrectly installed. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly installed center and outboard stowage bin modules that might not remain intact during an emergency landing, resulting in injuries to occupants and interference with airplane evacuation.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 5., “Compliance,” of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(8) of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the installations of the center and outboard stowage bin modules to determine if any part is missing, if any part is installed at an incorrect location, or if any quick release pin is not fully engaged; and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(8) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(1) For airplanes having variable numbers (V/Ns) ZA177 through ZA183 inclusive: Use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250036-00, Issue 001, dated September 10, 2013.
(2) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA100 through ZA105 inclusive, V/Ns ZA116 through ZA119 inclusive, V/N ZA135, and V/NsZA506 through ZA511 inclusive: Use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250039-00, Issue 001, dated October 8, 2013.
(3) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA460 through ZA464 inclusive: Use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250040-00, Issue 001, dated October 14, 2013.
(4) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA233 and V/Ns ZA236 through ZA240 inclusive: Use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250041-00, Issue 001, dated October 18, 2013.
(5) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA285 through ZA290 inclusive: Use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250042-00, Issue 001, dated October 28, 2013.
(6) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA270 through ZA271 inclusive: Use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250043-00, Issue 001, dated November 4, 2013.
(7) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA261 through ZA264 inclusive: Use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250044-00, Issue 001, dated November 8, 2013.
(8) For airplanes having V/Ns ZA536 through ZA538 inclusive: Use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250045-00, Issue 001, dated November 15, 2013.
Where the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(8) of this AD specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date 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 (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6585; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80E1 turbofan engines with rotating compressor discharge pressure (CDP) seal, part number (P/N) 1669M73P02, installed. This proposed AD was prompted by reports from the manufacturer of cracks in the teeth of two rotating CDP seals found during engine shop visits. This proposed AD would require stripping of the coating, inspecting, and recoating the teeth of the affected rotating CDP seals. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracking of the CDP seal teeth, which can lead to uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 19, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Herman Mak, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7147; fax: 781-238-7199; 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 reports from GE of cracks in the teeth on two rotating CDP seals found during engine shop visits. We learned that the current borazon-nickel seal tooth coating oxidizes during engine operation, which could lead to reduced cutting action, overheating of the seal teeth, and premature cracking of the seal teeth. This condition, if not corrected, could result in cracking of the CDP seal teeth, uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0529, Revision 1, dated August 21, 2015. The SB describes procedures for stripping, inspecting, and replacing the seal tooth coating on the affected rotating CDP seals. 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 reviewed GE CF6-80E1 (GEK99376) Engine Manual, Revision 42, dated March 15, 2014. The engine manual describes acceptable repair procedures for the seal teeth.
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 stripping, inspecting, and recoating the teeth on the affected CDP seals.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 6 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 7 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Parts would cost about $7,835 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $50,657.
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 19, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80E1 turbofan engines with rotating compressor discharge pressure (CDP) seals, part number (P/N) 1669M73P02, installed.
This AD was prompted by reports from the manufacturer of cracks in the teeth of two rotating CDP seals found during engine shop visits. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the CDP seal teeth, which can lead to uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
(1) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, strip coating, inspect, and recoat the teeth of the rotating CDP seal, P/N 1669M73P02, in accordance with paragraph 3.C.(2) of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0529, Revision 1, dated August 21, 2015, as follows:
(i) For engines that have had stationary CDP seal, P/N 1347M28G02, repaired or replaced, strip coating, inspect, and recoat the rotating CDP seal at the next engine shop visit.
(ii) For engines that have not had stationary CDP seal, P/N 1347M28G02, repaired or replaced, strip coating, inspect, and recoat the rotating CDP seal at the next part exposure.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, part exposure is defined as removal of the compressor rear frame from the high-pressure compressor module.
(2) For the purpose of this AD, an engine shop visit is defined as the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
If you stripped, inspected, and recoated the CDP seal, P/N 1669M73P02, using the procedures in ESM 72-31-10, REPAIR 002 of the GE CF6-80E1 (GEK99376) Engine Manual, Revision 42, dated March 15, 2014, or earlier versions, then you met the requirements of this AD.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Herman Mak, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7147; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) GE SB No. CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0529, Revision 1, dated August 21, 2015 can be obtained from GE using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this proposed AD.
(3) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
(4) 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 Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery of a number of incorrectly calibrated angle of attack (AOA) transducers installed in the stall protection system. This proposed AD would require replacement of incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers. We are proposing this AD to detect and replace incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers; incorrect calibration of the transducers could result in late activation of the stick pusher.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 4, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.
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
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-17, effective July 16, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:
It was discovered that a number of [angle of attack] AOA transducers installed on Bombardier CL-600-2B19 aeroplanes were incorrectly calibrated due to a quality control problem at both the production and repair facilities. Incorrect calibration of the AOA transducer could result in a late activation of the stick pusher.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the incorrectly calibrated AOA transducer.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-164, dated March 30, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacement of incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers with correctly calibrated AOA transducers. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 575 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,945,500, or $10,340 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by January 4, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 through 7067 inclusive, 7069 through 7990 inclusive, and 8000 through 8999 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by the discovery of a number of incorrectly calibrated angle of attack (AOA) transducers installed in the stall protection system.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For AOA transducers identified in paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-164, dated March 30, 2015: Within 2,500 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, replace the AOA transducers with correctly calibrated AOA transducers, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-164, dated March 30, 2015.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an AOA transducer having a part number or serial number listed in paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-164, dated March 30, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-17, dated July 16, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 99-16-01, for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). AD 99-16-01 currently requires repetitive inspections of certain bolt holes where parts of the main landing gear (MLG) are attached to the wing rear spar, and repair if necessary. Since we issued AD-99-16-01, we have determined that the risk of cracking in the rear spar is higher than initially determined. This proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability, reduce the compliance times and repetitive intervals for the inspections, and change the inspection procedures. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the rear spar of the wing, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 4, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 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
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On July 21, 1999, we issued AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999). AD 99-16-01 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes).
Since we issued AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743,
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0180, dated August 9, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During full-scale fatigue testing, cracks were found on the rear spar from certain bolt holes at the attachment of the Main Landing gear (MLG) forward pick-up fitting and the MLG Rib 5 aft.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued * * * [an AD] (later revised) to require High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) or Ultrasonic (U/S) inspections of certain fastener holes where the MLG forward pick-up fitting and MLG Rib 5 aft are attached to the rear spar.
Since DGAC France * * * [issued a revised AD, which corresponded to FAA AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999), which superseded FAA AD 95-20-02, Amendment 39-9380 (60 FR 52618, October 10, 1995)] * * *, a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses have shown that the threshold and interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of these cracks and accomplishment of an applicable corrective action.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of [the revised DGAC France AD], which is superseded, but reduces the related compliance times.
We have determined that if the inspection in paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(B)(
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 04, including Appendix 1, dated February 4, 2011. This service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of certain bolt holes where parts of the MLG are attached to the wing rear spar, and repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain all the requirements of AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999). Since AD 99-16-01 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have been redesignated in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:
Certain notes that appeared in AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999), were either removed due to the revised AD format or converted to regulatory text in this proposed AD.
• Notes 1, 6, and 7 of AD 99-16-01 have been removed from this proposed AD. Due to the revised AD format, certain information in these notes is now included in the AD template.
• The content of Note 2 of AD 99-16-01 is regulatory in nature; therefore, we have included that information in paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD.
• The content of Note 3 of AD 99-16-01 has been redesignated as Note 1 to paragraph (g) in this proposed AD.
• The content of Note 4 of AD 99-16-01 is regulatory in nature; therefore, we have included that information in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this proposed AD.
• The content of Note 5 of AD 99-16-01 is regulatory in nature; therefore, we have included that information in paragraph (k)(3) of this proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 71 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999), and retained in this proposed AD, take about 226 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 99-16-01 is $19,210 per product, per inspection cycle.
We also estimate that it would take about 226 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,363,910, or $19,210 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
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.
This AD replaces AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by the results of a full-scale fatigue test when cracking was found on the rear spar of the wing, and the subsequent determination that the risk of such cracking is higher than initially determined. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the rear spar of the wing, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999), with revised service information and reduced thresholds and repetitive intervals, for Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) 252 through 553 inclusive; except those airplanes on which Airbus Modification 07601 has been accomplished prior to delivery.
(1) Perform a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rototest inspection to detect cracks in certain bolt holes where the main landing gear (MLG) forward pick-up fitting and MLG rib 5 aft are attached to the rear spar, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated July 25, 1994; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 04, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2011. As of the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 04, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2011, may be used for the actions required by this paragraph.
(i) For airplanes that have accumulated 17,300 total landings or less as of November 9, 1995 (the effective date of AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999)): Inspect prior to the accumulation of 17,300 total landings, or within 1,500 landings after November 9, 1995, whichever occurs later.
(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 17,301 or more total landings, but less than 19,300 total landings as of November 9, 1995 (the effective date of AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999)): Inspect within 1,500 landings after November 9, 1995.
(iii) For airplanes that have accumulated 19,300 or more total landings as of November 9, 1995 (the effective date of AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999)): Inspect within 750 landings after November 9, 1995 (the effective date of AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999)):
(2) If no crack is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, repeat that inspection thereafter at the time specified in either paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 07716 (as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6020) has not been accomplished, inspect at the time specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) or (g)(2)(i)(B) of this AD, as applicable.
(A) For airplanes having MSNs 465 through 553 inclusive: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 13,000 landings, until the inspection required by paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(A)(
(B) For airplanes having MSN 252 through 464 inclusive: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 8,400 landings, until the inspection required by paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(A)(
(ii) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 07716 has been accomplished, inspect at the time specified in either paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(A) or (g)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD, as applicable.
(A) For airplanes having MSNs 465 through 553 inclusive: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 11,800 landings, until the inspection required by paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B) of this AD has been accomplished.
(B) For airplanes having MSNs 252 through 464 inclusive: Repeat the inspection within 10,700 landings following the initial inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,500 landings, until the inspection required by paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(B)(
(3) If any crack is found during the inspection required by either paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, prior to further flight,
(i) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 07716 has not been accomplished: Oversize the bolt hole by
(A) If no cracking is detected, install the second oversize bolt in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin 300-57-6017, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated July 25, 1994.
(B) If any cracking is detected, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(ii) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 07716 has been accomplished: Repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116. After repair, repeat the inspections as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD at the applicable schedule specified in that paragraph, until the inspection required by paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(B)(
(4) Perform an ultrasonic inspection to detect cracks in certain bolt holes where the MLG forward pick-up fitting and MLG rib 5 aft are attached to the rear spar, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 03, dated November 19, 1997; or Revision 04, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2011; at the time specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i) or (g)(4)(ii) of this AD, as applicable. As of the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 04, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2011, may be used for the actions in this paragraph.
(i) For airplanes not inspected prior to September 1, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999)), as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, dated November 22, 1993; or Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated July 25, 1994: Inspect at the time specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(A), (g)(4)(i)(B), or (g)(4)(i)(C) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplishment of this inspection terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(A) For airplanes that have accumulated 17,300 total landings or fewer as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect prior to the accumulation of 17,300 total landings, or within 1,500 landings after September 1, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999)), whichever occurs later.
(B) For airplanes that have accumulated 17,301 total landings or more but fewer than 19,300 total landings as of September 1, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999)): Inspect within 1,500 landings after September 1, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-16-01).
(C) For airplanes that have accumulated 19,300 total landings or more as of September 1, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999)): Inspect within 750 landings after September 1, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-16-01).
(ii) For airplanes on which an HFEC inspection was performed prior to September 1, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999)), in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, or in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, dated November 22, 1993: Inspect at the time specified in paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(A) or (g)(4)(ii)(B) of this AD, as applicable.
(A) If no cracking was detected during any HFEC inspection accomplished prior to September 1, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999)), and if Airbus Modification 07716 has not been accomplished: Inspect at the time specified in paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(A)(
(
(
(B) If any cracking was detected during any HFEC inspection performed prior to the effective date of this AD, regardless of the method of repair, or if Airbus Modification 07716 has been accomplished: Inspect at the time specified in paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(B)(
(
(
(5) If no cracking is detected during the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this AD, repeat that inspection thereafter at the time specified in paragraph (g)(5)(i) or (g)(5)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, until the initial ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD is done.
(i) For airplanes having MSNs 465 through 553 inclusive: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 8,900 landings.
(ii) For airplanes having MSNs 232 through 464 inclusive: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 5,500 landings.
(6) If any cracking is detected during any inspection performed in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(4) or (g)(5) of this AD: Prior to further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (or its delegated agent); or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated July 25, 1994; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 04, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2011; also reference Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6020, dated November 22, 1993, as an additional source of service information for installation of oversize studs in the bolt holes.
At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.B.(5), “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 04, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2011: Do ultrasonic inspections to detect cracks in the MLG attachment fitting holes on the wing rear spar, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 04, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2011. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.B.(5), “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 04, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2011. For airplanes modified as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6073, the initial inspection threshold is counted from the completion date of the modification. Clarification of compliance time terminology used in table 1, “Structural Inspection Program,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 04, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2011, is provided in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD. Accomplishment of the initial inspection terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(5) of this AD.
(1) For pre-Airbus Modification 07716 or pre-Airbus Modification 11440 airplanes:
(i) The term “flight cycles” in the “Inspection Threshold” column is total flight cycles accumulated by the airplane.
(ii) The term “flight hours” in the “Inspection Threshold” column is total flight hours accumulated by the airplane.
(2) For post-Airbus Modification 07716 airplanes:
(i) The term “flight cycles” in the “Inspection Threshold” column is total flight cycles accumulated by the airplane.
(ii) The term “flight hours” in the “Inspection Threshold” column is total flight hours accumulated by the airplane.
(3) For post-Airbus Modification 11440 (Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6073) airplanes:
(i) The term “flight cycles” in the “Inspection Threshold” column is flight cycles accumulated by the airplane after the modification was done.
(ii) The term “flight hours” in the “Inspection Threshold” column is flight hours accumulated by the airplane after the modification was done.
(4) For post-Airbus Modification 07601 airplanes:
(i) The term “flight cycles” in the “Inspection Threshold” column is total flight cycles accumulated by the airplane.
(ii) The term “flight hours” in the “Inspection Threshold” column is total flight hours accumulated by the airplane.
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Accomplishment of any repair as required by paragraph (i) of this AD is not terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using any of the following service information:
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, dated November 22, 1993, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated July 25, 1994, which was incorporated by reference in AD 95-20-02, Amendment 39-9380 (60 FR 52618, October 10, 1995).
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 02, dated January 14, 1997, including Appendix 1, dated July 25, 1994, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6017, Revision 03, dated November 19, 1997, including Appendix 1, which was incorporated by reference in AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999).
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(i) 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 99-16-01, Amendment 39-11236 (64 FR 40743, July 28, 1999), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0180, dated August 9, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. DOE.
Order Granting Motion for Technical Conference and Request to Postpone Comment Deadline.
In this order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) grants a motion for a technical conference and request to postpone comment deadline that was filed in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Collection of Connected Entity Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (NOPR) that Commission issued on September 17, 2015.
The technical conference will be held on December 8, 2015 and NOPR comments will be due January 22, 2016.
David Pierce (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6454
Kathryn Kuhlen (Legal Information), Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6855
Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Cheryl A. LaFleur, Tony Clark, and Colette D. Honorable.
Collection of Connected Entity Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators
Docket No. RM15-23-000
1. On September 17, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to amend its regulations to require each regional transmission organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO) to electronically deliver to the Commission, on an ongoing basis, data required from its market participants that would (i) identify the market participants by means of a common alpha-numeric identifier; (ii) list their “Connected Entities,” which includes entities that have certain ownership, employment, debt, or contractual relationships to the market participants, as specified in the NOPR; and (iii) describe in brief the nature of the relationship of each Connected Entity. The NOPR states the information is being sought to assist the Commission in its screening and investigative efforts to detect market manipulation, an enforcement priority of the Commission. Comments on the proposed rule are due November 30, 2015, which is 60 days after publication in the
2. On October 28, 2015, a group of entities (the Moving Entities) filed a Motion for Technical Conference and Request to Postpone Comment Deadline.
3. Filings in support of the Moving Entities' request were made by the Commercial Energy Working Group,
4. The Motion acknowledges and supports the important goals underlying the NOPR,
5. Upon careful consideration of this request, the Commission concurs that a technical conference would be useful in understanding industry concerns and the extent of the burdens that would be imposed upon market participants under the draft regulatory language. Therefore, the Commission will hold a staff-led technical conference on December 8, 2015, with comments due 45 days thereafter.
The Filing Entities' Motion for Technical Conference and Request to Postpone Comment Deadline is granted. The Commission directs staff to convene a technical conference on December 8, 2015. Comments will be due on January 22, 2016, 45 days after the technical conference.
By the Commission.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule; reproposal of proposed rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is re-proposing to classify in vitro diagnostic devices for
Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by February 16, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• 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
Beena Puri, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5553, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6202.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 301
Under section 513(d) of the FD&C Act, FDA refers to devices that were in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-295)), as “preamendments devices.” FDA classifies these devices after it: (1) Receives a recommendation from a device classification panel (an FDA advisory committee); (2) publishes the panel's recommendation for comment, along with a proposed regulation classifying the device; and (3) publishes a final regulation classifying the device. FDA has classified most preamendments devices under these procedures.
A person may market a preamendments device that has been classified into class III through premarket notification procedures, without submission of a premarket approval application (PMA), until FDA issues a final order under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b)) requiring premarket approval.
FDA refers to devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, as “postamendments devices.” These devices are classified automatically by statute (section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act) into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until FDA classifies or reclassifies the device into class I or class II or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807.
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(m)) provides that a class II device may be exempt from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) if the Agency determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Section 520(e) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(e)) authorizes FDA to issue regulations imposing restrictions on the sale, distribution, or use of a device, if, because of its potentiality for harmful effect or the collateral measures necessary to its use, FDA determines that absent such restrictions, there cannot be a reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness. Certain provisions of the FD&C Act relate specifically to FDA's authority over restricted devices. For example, section 502(q) and (r) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(q) and (r)) provide that a restricted device distributed or offered for sale in any state shall be deemed to be misbranded if its advertising is false or misleading or fails to include certain information regarding the device, or it is sold, distributed, or used in violation of regulations prescribed under section 520(e) of the FD&C Act, and section 704(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 374(a)) authorizes FDA to inspect certain records relating to restricted devices.
After the enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, FDA undertook to identify and classify all preamendments devices in accordance with section 513(b) of the FD&C Act. However, in vitro diagnostic devices for
Consistent with the FD&C Act, FDA held a panel meeting on March 7, 2002, regarding the classification of the preamendments in vitro diagnostic devices for
In the
During a public meeting held on March 7, 2002, the Panel made the following recommendations regarding the classification of in vitro diagnostic devices for
The Panel recommended that in vitro diagnostic devices for
The Panel recommended that the use of these devices be limited to prescription use, and also that distribution of the devices be limited to: (1) Persons with specific training or experience in the applicable testing methods and (2) facilities under the oversight of public health laboratories so that the laboratories could coordinate and communicate with state and local public health directors and so that performance of the devices in the laboratory might be systematically collated for interagency review (including FDA).
The Panel suggested: (1) That FDA partner with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), and other appropriate Agencies involved in laboratory performance issues to develop practical ways to evaluate the performance of these devices; (2) that appropriate biosafety handling of the diagnostic specimens be followed by laboratories; and (3) that FDA develop testing guidelines to include recommendations on specimen selection, procedures, interpretation of results, and possibly public health notification.
At the March 7, 2002, meeting, the Panel considered information from the literature presented by FDA (Refs. 2 to7), information presented at the meeting by representatives from USAMRIID who shared the historical perspective on their institution's use of devices for the detection of
Evidence presented to the Panel addressed how the preamendments devices of this type work and some of their limitations (Ref. 1). Bacteriophage tests are used for differentiating
FDA is proposing the following identification based on the Panel's discussion and recommendation, FDA's experience with these devices, and other available information. An in vitro diagnostic device for
FDA is proposing to classify these devices into class II because general controls are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the devices, and there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such assurance (see section V). For these devices, FDA believes that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness and, therefore, FDA does not intend to exempt the devices from premarket notification requirements.
Based on the Panel's discussion and recommendations, FDA's experience with these devices, and other available information, we believe the risks to health associated with the use of the device type are those discussed below. No new risks or significant changes in
Although there have been no reports to date, FDA believes that this type of device presents risks associated with false negative and false positive test results, which could result from device performance failures or errors in interpretation. A false positive result may lead to a patient undergoing unnecessary or ineffective treatment, and also could result in inaccurate epidemiological information on the presence of anthrax disease being publicized in a community, potentially leading to unnecessary prophylaxis and management of others. A false negative result may lead to delayed recognition by the physician of the presence or progression of disease and also could result in a failure to promptly recognize, control, and prevent additional infections. A false negative result could potentially delay diagnosis and treatment of infection caused by
In addition, while there have been few reports to date, there may be risks to laboratory workers from handling cultures and control materials. Improper handling of cultures and control materials may expose laboratory workers to serious health problems associated with infection caused by
Based on the Panel's discussion and recommendations, FDA's experience with these devices, and other available information, FDA is proposing to establish the special controls set forth in the draft guideline document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guideline: In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for
The class II special controls guideline, which sets forth criteria that are supplemental to other applicable requirements, addresses: (1) Specific information relating to the devices' intended use, components, testing procedures, specimen storage/shipping conditions, and interpretation/reporting that must be submitted to FDA; (2) detailed descriptive information submitted to FDA regarding the studies required to demonstrate appropriate performance and control against assays that may otherwise fail to perform to acceptable standards; (3) specific labeling requirements; and (4) certain information that must be submitted for in vitro diagnostic devices for
First, the submission of specific information to FDA related to the devices' intended use, components, testing procedures, specimen storage/shipping conditions, and interpretation/reporting would help mitigate the risks of false positive and false negatives as well as the biosafety risks of such devices because such information would help FDA to assess the safety and effectiveness of the devices. Second, detailed descriptive information regarding the studies required to demonstrate performance and control would mitigate the risk of false negatives and false positives by helping to ensure that the devices performs to acceptable standards. Third, specific labeling requirements would mitigate the risk of false positives, false negatives, and biosafety risks associated with the devices by helping to ensure that users understand the appropriate uses and limitations of the devices as well as the biosafety risks associated with the devices. Lastly, certain information that must be submitted to FDA for in vitro diagnostic devices for
Manufacturers of diagnostic devices for
FDA also believes that restrictions on the distribution and use of the devices are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. FDA proposes to restrict distribution of the devices to laboratories that follow public health guidelines that address the appropriate biosafety conditions, interpretation of test results, and coordination of findings with public health authorities. As noted, the Panel was concerned that these devices be used by personnel sufficiently skilled to maximize device performance and to appropriately interpret and make use of test results. FDA believes that this proposed distribution restriction is necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of these devices, and that it would be consistent with the intent of the Panel in its discussion of limitations on the distribution of the devices and on monitoring of test results.
Further, FDA proposes to restrict use of these devices to be a prescription device in accordance with the terms set forth in proposed 21 CFR 866.3045(d).
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guideline may do so by using the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidelines and guidance documents is available at
The Agency has determined that under 21 CFR 25.34(b) and (f), this proposed action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This proposed rule refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120 and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
The labeling referenced in sections VI(A), VIII(A), and VIII(C) of the draft special controls guideline do not constitute a “collection of information” under the PRA because the labeling is a “public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public” (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).
The draft special controls guideline reflects changes the Agency has made since the initial proposed rule to clarify its position on the binding nature of special controls. The changes include referring to the document as a “guideline,” as that term is used in section 513(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(a)), which the Agency has developed and disseminated to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for class II devices, and not a “guidance,” as that term is used in 21 CFR 10.115. The draft guideline clarifies that firms submitting 510(k)s would need either to: (1) Comply with the particular mitigation measures set forth in the special controls guideline or (2) use alternative mitigation measures, but demonstrate to the Agency's satisfaction that those alternative measures identified by the firm will provide at least an equivalent assurance of safety and effectiveness. Finally, the draft guideline uses mandatory language to emphasize that firms must comply with special controls to legally market their class II devices. These revisions do not represent a change in FDA's position about the binding effect of special controls, but rather are intended to address any possible confusion or misunderstanding.
FDA proposes the implementation strategy set forth below for these devices if a final rule becomes effective.
• Devices that have
• Devices that have been legally marketed prior to the date of publication of any final rule, and devices for which 510(k) submissions have been submitted before the date of publication of any final rule: FDA does not intend to enforce compliance with the submission requirement for the special controls set forth in sections VI, VII, and IX of the special controls guideline. Manufacturers of such devices must comply with the underlying requirements for those special controls as well as the labeling special controls set forth in section VIII of the guideline.
FDA has examined the impacts of this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Agency believes that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because of the minor impact expected from this proposed action, the Agency proposes to certify that the proposed rule, when finalized, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $144 million, using the most current (2014) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross National Product. FDA does not expect this proposed rule, when finalized, to
The proposed rule would require the adoption of practices most of which manufacturers of currently marketed in vitro diagnostic devices for
There are unlikely to be any
The full discussion of economic impacts is available in Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0103 and at
The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Biologics, Laboratories, Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 866 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(a)
(b)
(c) The distribution of these devices is limited to laboratories that follow public health guidelines that address appropriate biosafety conditions, interpretation of test results, and coordination of findings with public health authorities.
(d) The use of this device is restricted to prescription use and must comply with the following:
(1) The device must be in the possession of:
(i)(A) A person, or his agents or employees, regularly and lawfully engaged in the manufacture,
(B) A practitioner, such as a physician, licensed by law to use or order the use of such device; and
(ii) The device must be sold only to or on the prescription or other order of such practitioner for use in the course of his professional practice.
(2) The label of the device shall bear the statement “Caution: Federal law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a ____”, the blank to be filled with the word “physician” or with the descriptive designation of any other practitioner licensed by the law of the State in which he practices to use or order the use of the device.
(3) Any labeling, as defined in section 201(m) of the FD&C Act, whether or not it is on or within a package from which the device is to be dispensed, distributed by, or on behalf of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor of the device, that furnishes or purports to furnish information for use of the device contains adequate information for such use, including indications, effects, routes, methods, and frequency and duration of administration and any relevant hazards, contraindications, side effects, and precautions, under which practitioners licensed by law to employ the device can use the device safely and for the purposes for which it is intended, including all purposes for which it is advertised or represented. This information will not be required on so-called reminder-piece labeling which calls attention to the name of the device but does not include indications or other use information.
(4) All labeling, except labels and cartons, bearing information for use of the device also bears the date of the issuance or the date of the latest revision of such labeling.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would require each public housing agency (PHA) administering public housing to implement a smoke-free policy. Specifically, this rule proposes that no later than 18 months from the effective date of the final rule, each PHA must implement a policy prohibiting lit tobacco products in all living units, indoor common areas in public housing, and in PHA administrative office buildings (in brief, a smoke-free policy for all public housing indoor areas). The smoke-free policy must also extend to all outdoor areas up to 25 feet from the housing and administrative office buildings. HUD proposes implementation of smoke-free public housing to improve indoor air quality in the housing, benefit the health of public housing residents and PHA staff, reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, and lower overall maintenance costs.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule. All communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., weekdays, at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at
Leroy Ferguson, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone number 202-402-2411 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing and persons with speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The purpose of the proposed rule is to require PHAs to, within 18 months of the final rule, establish a policy prohibiting lit tobacco products, as such term is proposed to be defined in § 965.653(c). inside all indoor areas of public housing, including but not limited to living units, indoor common areas, electrical closets, storage units, and PHA administrative office buildings and in all outdoor areas within 25 feet of the housing and administrative office buildings (collectively, “restricted areas”). As further discussed in this rule, such a policy is expected to improve indoor air quality in public housing, benefit the health of public housing residents and PHA staff, reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, and lower overall maintenance costs.
This proposed rule would apply to all public housing, other than dwelling units in mixed-finance buildings. PHAs would be required, within 18 months of the effective date of the final rule, to establish policies prohibiting lit tobacco products in all restricted areas. PHAs may, but would not be required to, further restrict smoking to outdoor dedicated smoking areas outside the restricted areas, create additional restricted areas in which smoking is
PHAs would also be required to document their smoke-free policies in their PHA plans, a process that requires resident engagement and public meetings. The prohibition on lit tobacco would also be included in a tenant's lease, which may be done either through an amendment process or as tenants renew their leases annually.
The costs to PHAs of implementing smoke-free policies may include training, administrative, legal, and enforcement costs. Of these costs, HUD expects that the expense of additional enforcement efforts may be the highest. The costs of implementing a smoke-free policy as proposed by this rule are minimized by the fact that HUD guidance already exists on many of the topics covered by the smoke-free policy proposed to be required by this rule; that hundreds of PHAs have already voluntarily implemented smoke-free policies; and that infrastructure already exists for enforcement of lease violations, and violation of the smoke-free policy would be a lease violation. In addition, time spent by PHA staff on implementing and enforcing the smoke-free policy will be partially offset by the time that staff no longer have to spend mediating disputes among residents over smoking in secondhand smoke infiltration within living units. Given the existing HUD guidance, initial learning costs associated with implementation of a smoke-free policy may not be significant. For the hundreds of PHAs that are already implementing voluntary smoke-free policies, there will be minimal costs for these PHAs, and, generally, only if their existing policies are not consistent with the minimum requirements for smoke-free policies proposed by this rule.
The benefits of smoke free policies, however, could be considerable. Over 700,000 units would be affected by this rule (including over 500,000 units inhabited by elderly households or households with a non-elderly person with disabilities), and their non-smoking residents would have the potential to experience health benefits from a reduction of exposure to secondhand smoke. PHAs will also benefit from a reduction of damage caused by smoking, and residents and PHAs both gain from seeing a reduction in injuries, deaths, and property damage caused by fires. Estimates of these and other rule-induced impacts are summarized in the following table:
For additional details on the costs and benefits of this rule, please see the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rule, which can be found at
Tobacco smoking has been determined to be a cause of diseases of nearly all organs in the body, and research continues to newly identify diseases caused by smoking, including diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis, and colorectal cancer. In addition to causing multiple diseases and cancers, tobacco smoking has many other adverse effects on the body, including inflammation and impairment to the immune system.
Adverse effects of tobacco use are not limited to the smoker. The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (
The effects of SHS are especially damaging in children and unborn fetuses. The Surgeon General estimates that SHS is responsible for the death of hundreds of newborns from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) each year.
Approximately half of the U.S. population is protected from SHS exposure through statewide, municipal, and federal laws prohibiting smoking in indoor areas of public places and worksites, including bars and restaurants. However, an estimated 58 million Americans remain exposed to secondhand smoke, including 15 million children ages 3 to 11. The home is the primary source of exposure for children.
The movement of contaminants from SHS within buildings has also been documented through direct measurements of fine particles (an environmental marker of SHS) in indoor air. SHS can move both from external hallways into apartments and between adjacent units.
The Surgeon General concluded in 2006 that separating smokers and nonsmokers, building ventilation, and cleaning the air cannot eliminate exposure to SHS; that can only be accomplished by eliminating smoking from indoor spaces.
Beyond the increased costs associated with higher healthcare expenses, tobacco smoking can have profound financial impacts on PHAs and owners of other multiunit properties. Smoking is the leading cause of fire deaths in multiunit properties.
Smoking is also associated with higher maintenance costs for landlords of multiunit housing. Smoking indoors increases the cost of rehabilitating a housing unit because of the need for additional cleaning, painting, and repair of damaged items at unit turnover compared to non-smoking units. The cost of cleaning and renovating a smoking unit adds up quickly, and smaller properties generally pay more per unit than larger properties when repairing smoking damage. A survey of public and subsidized housing managers found that the additional cost of rehabilitating the units of smokers averaged $1,250 to $2,955 per unit, depending on the intensity of smoking.
Self-imposed rules prohibiting smoking in individual households (referred to as smoke-free home rules) are becoming increasingly common in the United States. CDC researchers found that the prevalence of smoke-free home rules among U.S. households increased from 43 percent in 1992-1993 to 83 percent in 2010-2011, including an increase among households with at least one adult smoker, implying that the smokers in these households agree to smoke outside of the home.
HUD determined that the advantages of smoke-free housing policies were sufficient to warrant action by HUD to promote the voluntary adoption of smoke-free policies by PHAs and the owners/operators of federally subsidized multifamily properties. In 2009, HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing published a notice that strongly encouraged PHAs to adopt smoke-free policies in at least some of the properties that they managed (this notice was reissued in 2012).
In October 2012, HUD also published a
In 2014, HUD released additional guidance for PHAs and owners/agents of subsidized multifamily properties on implementing smoke-free policies. This guidance incorporates some of the feedback that HUD received from the 2012
As a result of these combined actions, over 500 PHAs have implemented smoke-free policies in at least one of their buildings. While this voluntary effort has been highly successful, it has also resulted in a scattered distribution of smoke-free policies, with the greatest concentration in the Northeast, West, and Northwest, which also results in unequal protection from SHS for public housing residents. HUD recognizes that additional action is necessary to truly eliminate the risk of SHS exposure to public housing residents, reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, lower overall maintenance costs, and implement uniform requirements to ensure that all public housing residents are equally protected.
Therefore, HUD is proposing to require PHAs to implement smoke-free policies within public housing except for dwelling units in a mixed-finance project. Public housing is defined as low-income housing, and all necessary appurtenances (
While the smoke-free policy will also apply to scattered sites and single family properties, this requirement would not extend to public housing units that are part of a mixed-finance project because the PHA may not be the primary owner, and non-public housing units may be contained within the building. While smoking in single family units does not lead to smoke intrusion to adjacent units, the risk of fire and the increased unit turnover costs remain. Further, including all public housing units covered by this proposed rule means that all tenants will be treated equally and be subject to the same lease requirements. This prohibition on smoking would cover all types of lit tobacco products, including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. While the prohibition does not specifically cover waterpipe tobacco smoking (referred to as hookahs), such smoking involves lit charcoal and results in heating tobacco to temperatures high enough to produce secondhand smoke that contains harmful toxins.
The prohibition on the use of lit tobacco products in this proposal does not include electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), including electronic cigarettes (“e-cigarettes”). The absence of a prohibition on the use of e-cigarettes in this rule should not be read as an endorsement of e-cigarettes as an acceptable health alternative to cigarettes. The aerosol from ENDS typically contains nicotine derived from tobacco plants, and may contain other hazardous and potentially hazardous constituents such as formaldehyde and lead.
In proposing this policy, it is important for HUD to clarify that HUD's proposal does not prohibit individual PHA residents from smoking. PHAs should continue leasing to persons who smoke. This rule is not intended to contradict HUD's goals to end homelessness and help all Americans secure quality housing. Rather, HUD is proposing a prohibition on smoking inside public housing living units and indoor common areas, public housing administrative office buildings, public housing community rooms or community facilities, public housing day care centers and laundry rooms, in outdoor areas within 25 feet of the housing and administrative office buildings, and in other areas designated by a PHA as smoke-free (collectively, “restricted areas”). PHAs will have the discretion to establish outside designated smoking locations outside of the required 25 feet perimeter, which may include partially enclosed structures, to accommodate smoking residents, to establish additional smoke-free areas (such as around a playground), or, alternatively, to make their entire grounds smoke-free. In addition, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act provides the participant the right to seek a reasonable accommodation, including requests from residents with mobility-impairment or mental disability. A request for a reasonable accommodation from an eligible participant must at least be considered, and granted in appropriate circumstances. To assist PHAs, HUD will work with its Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to develop guidance on accommodating persons with a disability related to smoke-free policies. The guidance will be informed by comments on the proposed rule and issued in advance of the final rule.
The benefits of this proposed regulatory action may be substantial, and beneficiaries include both PHAs and residents of public housing. Over 700,000 units would be affected by this rule (including over 500,000 units inhabited by elderly households or households with a non-elderly person with disabilities), and their residents would have the potential to experience health benefits from a reduction of exposure to secondhand smoke. There are also over 775,000 children in these units. PHAs will benefit from a reduction of damage and renovation costs caused by smoking. Both residents and PHAs will gain from reducing deaths, injuries, and property damage caused by fires. The costs to PHAs of implementing the smoke-free policy proposed by this rule may include training, administrative, legal, and enforcement costs. Of these costs to PHAs, HUD expects that the expense of additional enforcement efforts may be the highest. The costs of implementing the smoke-free policy proposed by this rule are minimized by the fact that HUD guidance already exists on many of the topics covered by the proposed regulatory changes, and that over 500 PHAs have already implemented smoke-free policies. Given the existence of this HUD guidance, initial learning costs associated with implementation of a smoke-free policy as proposed by this rule may not be significant.
There may be costs to residents as a result of eviction, particularly for persons with disabilities, and especially those with mobility impairments. HUD recognizes that this rule could adversely impact those with mobility impairment or particular frailties that prevent them from smoking in designated areas. As mentioned above, HUD will develop guidance on reasonable accommodation, and HUD solicits public comment on how to mitigate these potential adverse impacts.
HUD recognizes that PHAs developing smoke-free housing policies may need technical assistance in writing the policies, engaging residents, and assisting residents who want to stop smoking. HUD will continue to provide free webinars and training sessions addressing these and related topics. PHAs are encouraged to work with their State HUD office, State and local tobacco prevention and cessation programs, state and community health organizations, and the Environmental Protection Agency's community-based asthma program network (
In addition to the October 2012
As stated above, this proposal would apply to all PHAs of any size and Moving-to-Work (MTW) agencies, but it would only apply to public housing, and would not apply to dwelling units in a mixed-finance project. Public housing is defined as low-income housing, and all necessary appurtenances (
In § 965.653, HUD provides that a PHA's smoke-free policy must prohibit all “lit tobacco products.” HUD proposes to define “lit tobacco products” as all lit tobacco products that involve the ignition and burning of tobacco leaves such as cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. HUD is proposing to require that PHAs prohibit all lit tobacco products not only in dwelling units, but also within indoor common areas and in outdoor areas within 25 feet of the housing and any PHA administrative office buildings (the “restricted areas”). Outside of these areas, PHAs would be permitted to limit smoking to outdoor
HUD is proposing to provide PHAs 18 months from the effective date of the final rule to implement smoke-free public housing, as proposed by this rule. HUD believes that 18 months will provide PHAs sufficient time to conduct resident engagement, to hold any public meetings that are required to amend their PHA plans, and to incorporate the required new lease provisions during tenants' recertifications or at a date before the policy is fully effective. PHAs that already have a smoke-free policy in effect will be required to review their existing policies for compliance with the requirements of this rule, as presented in the final rule, and amend their policies as necessary in the same timeframe of 18 months from the effective date of the final rule in order to implement smoke-free public housing, consistent with the requirements of the final rule.
In addition, HUD is proposing to require PHAs to amend their PHA plans to incorporate the smoke-free policy. If the PHA determines the imposition of a smoke-free policy is a significant amendment to the PHA plan, the PHA must conduct public meetings in accordance with standard PHA Plan amendment procedures, and these meetings must be held in accessible buildings and provided in accessible formats, as necessary, for persons with disabilities and those who are limited in English proficiency. HUD would recommend that all PHAs conduct meetings with residents to fully explain the smoke-free building requirements and to best determine which outside areas, if any, to designate as smoking areas and to accommodate the needs of all residents.
HUD believes that the best way to implement smoke-free policies is to incorporate the prohibition on indoor smoking in the leases each tenant must sign. This will allow PHAs to use enforcement mechanisms already in place and provide an additional notification of the policy to tenants. HUD expects PHAs to follow the PIH administrative grievance procedures during enforcement of their smoke-free housing policies. Because some tenants may not be recertified before the policy takes effect, PHAs may require that all remaining leases be amended, or may establish their own schedule for lease amendments, provided that all leases are amended by the effective date of the policy.
While HUD welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed rule, HUD is seeking specific comment on the following questions:
1. What barriers that PHAs could encounter in implementing smoke-free housing? What costs could PHAs incur? Are there any specific costs to enforcing such a policy?
2. Does this proposed rule adequately address the adverse effects of smoking and secondhand smoke on PHAs and PHA residents?
3. Does this proposed rule create burdens, costs, or confer benefits specific to families, children, persons with disabilities, owners, or the elderly, particularly if any individual or family is evicted as a result of this policy?
4. For those PHAs that have already implemented a smoke-free policy, what exceptions to the requirements have been granted based on tenants' requests?
5. For those PHAs that have already implemented a smoke-free policy, what experiences, lessons, or advice would you share based on your experiences with implementing and enforcing the policy?
6. For those PHAs that have already implemented a smoke-free policy, what tobacco cessation services were offered to residents to assist with the change? Did you establish partnerships with external groups to provide or refer residents to these services?
7. Are there specific areas of support that HUD could provide PHAs that would be particularly helpful in the implementation of the proposed rule?
8. Should the policy extend to electronic nicotine delivery systems, such as e-cigarettes?
9. Should the policy extend to waterpipe tobacco smoking? Does such smoking increase the risk of fire or property damage?
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 (entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review”). OMB determined that this rule was economically significant under the order. The docket file is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. The initial Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) prepared for this rule is also available for public inspection in the Regulations Division and may be viewed online at
The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2577-0226. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule will not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA.
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
There are 2334 “small” PHAs (defined as PHAs with fewer than 250 units), which make up 75 percent of the public housing stock across the country. Of this number, approximately 378 have already instituted a voluntary full or partial policy on indoor tobacco smoking.
HUD anticipates that implementation of the policy will impose minimal additional costs, as creation of the smoke-free policy only requires amendment of leases and the PHA plan, both of which may be done as part of a PHA's normal course of business. Additionally, enforcement of the policy will add minimal incremental costs, as PHAs must already regularly inspect public housing units and enforce lease provisions. Any costs of this rule are mitigated by the fact that PHAs have up to 18 months to implement the policy, allowing for costs to be spread across that time period.
While there are significant benefits to the smoke-free policy requirement, the majority of those benefits accrue to the public housing residents themselves, not to the PHAs. PHAs will realize monetary benefits due to reduced unit turnover costs and reduced fire and fire prevention costs, but these benefits are variable according to the populations of each PHA and the PHA's existing practices.
Finally, this rule does not impose a disproportionate burden on small PHAs. The rule does not require a fixed expenditure; rather, all costs should be proportionate to the size of the PHA implementing and enforcing the smoke-free policy.
Therefore, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Notwithstanding HUD's view that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in the preamble.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This final rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments nor preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the Public Housing program is 14.872.
Government procurement, Grant programs-housing and community development, Lead poisoning, Loan programs-housing and community development, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Utilities.
Grant programs-housing and community development, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR parts 965 and 966 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1547, 1437a, 1437d, 1437g, and 3535(d). Subpart H is also issued under 42 U.S.C. 4821-4846.
This subpart applies to public housing units, except for dwelling units in a mixed-finance project. Public housing is defined as low-income housing, and all necessary appurtenances (
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(1) All applicable PHA plans, according to the provisions in 24 CFR part 903.
(2) Tenant leases, according to the provisions of 24 CFR 966.4.
(b)
42 U.S.C. 1437d and 3535(d).
(f) * * *
(12) * * *
(i) To assure that no tenant, member of the tenant's household, or guest engages in:
(A)
(
(B)
(ii) To assure that no other person under the tenant's control engages in:
(A)
(
(B)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
This document provides notice of public hearing on proposed regulations relating to the administration of a multiemployer plan participant vote on an approved suspension of benefits under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) that were issued in the Proposed Rules section of the
The public hearing is being held on Friday, December 18, 2015, at 10 a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Monday, November 30, 2015.
The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-123640-15), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-132634-14), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the regulations, the Department of the Treasury MPRA guidance information line at (202) 622-1559; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-123640-15) that was published in the
A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR) (Room 1621) which is located at the 11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Michigan Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, December 18, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. EST for the purpose of discussing preparations for a public hearing on the civil rights impact of civil forfeiture practices in the State. The Committee met on October 30, 2015 and approved a project proposal to take up a study on this topic and potential disparate impact or denial of equal protection under the law on the basis of federally protected classes.
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-455-2296, conference ID: 4597163. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement at the end of the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Carolyn Allen at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
The meeting will be held on Friday, December 18, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. EST.
Melissa Wojnaroski at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Missouri Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday January 20, 2016, for the purpose of discussing oral and written testimony received during two public meetings focused on civil rights and police and community interactions in Missouri. Themes and findings discussed during this meeting will form the basis of a report to be issued to the Commission on this topic.
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-430-8709, conference ID: 8351674. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines according to their wireless plan, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within thirty days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available at
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 20, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. CST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, from 12:00-1:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of preparing for a series of public hearings to study Civil Rights and the School to Prison Pipeline in Indiana.
Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-438-5453 conference ID: 2772442. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Member of the public are also invited to make statements during the scheduled open comment period. In addition, members of the public may submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days after the Committee meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Carolyn Allen at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and following the meeting at
The meeting will be held on Wednesday December 2, 2015, from 12:00-1:00 p.m. EST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or
The New River Valley Economic Development Alliance, grantee of FTZ 238, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of CEI-Roanoke, LLC (CEI), located in Roanoke, Virginia. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on November 6, 2015.
The CEI facility is located at 4411 Plantation Road NE., Roanoke, Virginia. A separate application for subzone designation at the CEI facility has been submitted and will be processed under Section 400.31 of the FTZ Board's regulations. The facility is used for the bottling of cosmetics and personal care products. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt CEI from customs duty
The components sourced from abroad include: Plastic bottles/containers/caps/lids/bottle collars/jars/tubes; glass bottles; decorative charms on chains; metal bottle collars/caps/lids; scent sprayers; and, scent pumps (duty rate ranges from free to 5.3%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 28, 2015.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Pierre Duy at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request from Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (Petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from Malaysia.
Dena Crossland or Angelica Townshend, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3362 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.
As a result of the antidumping duty order issued following the completion of the less-than-fair-value investigation of certain steel nails (steel nails) from Malaysia, imports of steel nails from mandatory respondent Inmax Sdn. Bdh. (Inmax Sdn) became subject to a cash deposit rate of 39.35 percent.
The product covered by this changed circumstances review is certain steel nails from Malaysia. For a full description of the scope of the order,
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. However, section 751(b)(4) of the Tarriff Act of 1930 also provides that the administering authority may not conduct a changed circumstance review of an investigation determination within 24 months of the date of the investigation determination in the absence of “good cause.” In its request for initiation, Petitioner provided information indicating that since the
This notice is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order is certain steel nails having a nominal shaft length not exceeding 12 inches.
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are certain steel nails packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is less than 25. If packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, certain steel nails remain subject merchandise if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is equal to or greater than 25, unless otherwise excluded based on the other exclusions below.
Also excluded from the scope are certain steel nails with a nominal shaft length of one inch or less that are (a) a component of an unassembled article, (b) the total number of nails is sixty (60) or less, and (c) the imported unassembled article falls into one of the following eight groupings: (1) builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as windows, French-windows and their frames; (2) builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as doors and their frames and thresholds; (3) swivel seats with variable height adjustment; (4) seats that are convertible into beds (with the exception of those classifiable as garden seats or camping equipment); (5) seats of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials; (6) other seats with wooden frames (with the exception of seats of a kind used for aircraft or motor vehicles); (7) furniture (other than seats) of wood (with the exception of i) medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; and ii) barbers' chairs and similar chairs, having rotating as well as both reclining and elevating movements); or (8) furniture (other than seats) of materials other than wood, metal, or plastics (
Also excluded from the scope of this changed circumstances review are steel nails that meet the specifications of Type I, Style 20 nails as identified in Tables 29 through 33 of ASTM Standard F1667 (2013 revision).
Also excluded from the scope of this changed circumstances review are nails suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.20.00 and 7317.00.30.00.
Also excluded from the scope of this changed circumstances review are nails having a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 on the Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools.
Also excluded from the scope of this changed circumstances review are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made up of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side.
Also excluded from the scope of this changed circumstances review are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheading 7317.00.10.00.
Certain steel nails subject to this changed circumstances review are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.55.02, 7317.00.55.03, 7317.00.55.05, 7317.00.55.07, 7317.00.55.08, 7317.00.55.11, 7317.00.55.18, 7317.00.55.19, 7317.00.55.20, 7317.00.55.30, 7317.00.55.40, 7317.00.55.50, 7317.00.55.60, 7317.00.55.70, 7317.00.55.80, 7317.00.55.90, 7317.00.65.30, 7317.00.65.60 and 7317.00.75.00. Certain steel nails subject to this changed circumstances review also may be classified under HTSUS subheading 8206.00.00.00 or other HTSUS subheadings.
While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this changed circumstances review is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC) have determined that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on carbazole violet pigment (CVP-23) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) and India would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States. The Department and the ITC have also determined that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on CVP-23 from India would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of net countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States. Therefore, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation for these AD and CVD orders.
Kaitlin Wojnar (AD Orders), AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, or Jacqueline Arrowsmith (CVD Order), AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3857 or (202) 482-5255, respectively.
On April 1, 2015, the Department initiated
On November 6, 2015, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the AD order on CVP-23 from India and the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.
The merchandise subject to this countervailing duty order is CVP-23 identified as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-30-1, with the chemical name of diindolo [3,2-b:3′,2′-m]
During this sunset review period, there was one scope ruling completed between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011.
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States and revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States. Pursuant to section 75l(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD orders on CVP-23 from India and the PRC, and the CVD order on CVP-23 from India. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD 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 AD order and CVD order will be the date of publication in the
These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of critical habitat determination.
We, NMFS, find that there are no marine areas within the jurisdiction of the United States that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Central and Southwest (Central & SW) Atlantic Distinction Population Segment (DPS), Indo-West Pacific DPS, or Eastern Pacific DPS of scalloped hammerhead shark. Based on a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial data for use in the identification of critical habitat, we find that there are no identifiable physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of these scalloped hammerhead DPSs and found within areas under U.S. jurisdiction, or any areas outside of the geographical area occupied by the listed DPSs under U.S. jurisdiction that are considered essential to their conservation. As such, we find that there are no specific areas under the jurisdiction of the United States that meet the definition of critical habitat.
This finding is made on November 17, 2015.
Electronic copies of the determination, list of references and supporting documents prepared for this action are available from the NMFS Office of Protected Resources Web site at
Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.
On July 3, 2014, we published a final rule to list the Central and Southwest (Central & SW) Atlantic Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and the Indo-West Pacific DPS of scalloped hammerhead shark (
This finding describes information on the biology, distribution, and habitat use of scalloped hammerhead sharks and the methods used to identify areas that may meet the definition of critical habitat. In this determination, we focus on those aspects directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for scalloped hammerhead sharks. For more detailed information on the biology and habitat use of scalloped hammerhead sharks, refer to the status review report (Miller
The following discussion of the life history and status of the scalloped hammerhead shark DPSs is based on the best scientific data available, including the
All hammerhead sharks belong to the family Sphyrnidae and are classified as ground sharks (Order Carcharhiniformes). Most hammerheads, including the scalloped hammerhead shark, belong to the Genus
Scalloped hammerhead sharks can be found in coastal warm temperate and tropical seas worldwide. They occur over continental and insular shelves, as well as adjacent deep waters, but are seldom found in waters cooler than 22° C (Compagno 1984; Schulze-Haugen and Kohler 2003). These sharks range from the intertidal and surface to depths of up to 450-512 m (Sanches 1991; Klimley 1993), with occasional dives to even deeper waters (Jorgensen
Both juveniles and adult scalloped hammerhead sharks occur as solitary individuals, pairs, or in schools. The schooling behavior has been documented during summer migrations off the coast of South Africa as well as in permanent resident populations, like those in the East China Sea (Compagno 1984). Adult aggregations are most common offshore over seamounts and near islands, whereas neonate and juvenile aggregations are more common in nearshore nursery habitats (Compagno 1984; Duncan and Holland 2006; CITES 2010; Hearn
The scalloped hammerhead shark is a high trophic level predator (trophic level = 4.1; Cortés 1999) and opportunistic feeder with a diet that includes a wide variety of teleosts, cephalopods, crustaceans, and rays (Compagno 1984; Bush 2003; Júnior
Based on the genetic diversity among subpopulations, geographic isolation, and differences in international regulatory mechanisms, we identified six DPSs of scalloped hammerhead sharks that are both discrete and significant to the taxon as a whole. The six scalloped hammerhead shark DPSs, which comprise the global population, are: (1) Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico DPS, (2) Central & SW Atlantic DPS, (3) Eastern Atlantic DPS, (4) Indo-West Pacific DPS, (5) Central Pacific DPS, and (6) Eastern Pacific DPS. All scalloped hammerhead sharks are both targeted and taken as bycatch in many global fisheries, with their fins a primary product for international trade. However, the exploitation by commercial and artisanal fisheries and lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms, combined with the species' biological vulnerability to depletion, has led to declines of the Eastern Atlantic, Eastern Pacific, Central & SW Atlantic, and Indo-West Pacific DPSs to the point where the Eastern Atlantic and Eastern Pacific DPSs are presently in danger of extinction and the Central & SW
Critical habitat is defined by section 3 of the ESA as: “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed . . ., on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed . . . upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” This definition provides a step-wise approach to identifying areas that may qualify as critical habitat for the listed scalloped hammerhead shark DPSs: (1) Determine the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing; (2) identify physical or biological habitat features essential to the conservation of the species; (3) delineate specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which are found the physical or biological features; (4) determine whether the features in a specific area may require special management considerations or protection; and (5) determine whether any unoccupied areas are essential for conservation. Our evaluation and conclusions as we worked through this step-wise process are described in detail in the following sections.
We have interpreted “geographical area occupied” in the definition of critical habitat as the range of the species at the time of listing (45 FR 13011; February 27, 1980). Further, our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h) state: “Critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in other areas outside of United States jurisdiction.” The distribution of the Eastern Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead shark is found entirely in waters outside of U.S. jurisdiction. As such, we cannot designate critical habitat for the Eastern Atlantic DPS and will focus the following discussion on the other three listed scalloped hammerhead DPSs: Eastern Pacific DPS, Central & SW Atlantic DPS, and Indo-West Pacific DPS.
The Eastern Pacific DPS generally occurs off the coasts of Mexico and within the Gulf of California, from 32°N latitude south to northern Peru, around 4°S latitude. We characterize this geographical area as the “core range” or occupied area of the DPS (where one would most likely observe scalloped hammerhead sharks). This core range is entirely outside of U.S. jurisdiction. However, individuals of the species have been documented north and south of these core range boundary lines, but rarely and usually only during specific weather events. These observations primarily occur during strong El Niño events, defined as a positive sea surface temperature (SST) departure from normal greater than or equal to +1.5°C for 5 consecutive 3-month running mean SSTs, and represent an opportunistic northward displacement of the species (Siegel 1987; Shane 2001). It is important to note that these strong El Niño events are only identified as such after they have already occurred (since they are based on 3-month running averages), and, as such, are difficult to forecast. There is no information that the areas off southern California and areas north, and off Peru and Chile, are now or were historically used as habitat for the species. Given the amount of fishing effort as well as the human population density in these regions, it is highly unlikely that substantial concentrations of scalloped hammerhead sharks would have passed unnoticed. As such, we consider these areas outside of the core range to be used solely by vagrants (individuals that occur outside of their normal range) and only during rare weather events that are difficult to forecast. Below we provide further information on the occupation and use of these areas to support this conclusion.
In southern California waters (which are under U.S. jurisdiction), the first verified observation of a scalloped hammerhead shark was in 1977 (Fusaro and Anderson 1980). Since then, observations have been sporadic and only associated with unusually warm water, as occurs during El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. Based on the available information, we found confirmation of 26 scalloped hammerhead individuals in southern California waters since 1977 (Fusaro and Anderson 1980; Siegel 1985; Lea and Rosenblatt 2000; Shane 2001; Galante 2014). The majority of these observations occurred immediately before, during, and following the strong 1997-1998 ENSO event (Lea and Rosenblatt 2000; Shane 2001). Between 1997 and 1999, 19 young-of-the-year (YOY) (<100 cm TL) scalloped hammerhead sharks were caught in San Diego Bay (Shane 2001). Since 1999, only one scalloped hammerhead shark has been observed in southern California waters, caught on video by spear fishermen off Anacapa Island, Channel Islands in October of 2014 (Galante 2014). The observed scalloped hammerhead sharks consist of adult female and juvenile sharks, suggesting that during strong El Niño events, the species may use southern California waters as pupping and nursery grounds. The last strong (≥1.5°C SST) El Niño event to occur was in 1997-1998. Since then, there have been a number of weak (0.5 to 0.9°C SST anomaly) and moderate (1.0 to 1.4°C SST anomaly) El Niño events, but based on the observational data, these events do not appear to transform the southern California waters into occupiable habitat for the species.
Similarly, in the central-south eastern Pacific, off the coasts of Peru and Chile, scalloped hammerhead observations are rare and also seem to be correlated with El Niño events. A single reference to the occurrence of the species in waters of Peru points to the presence of the species off Puerto Pizzaro in 1998, which is located in northern Peru, very close to the border of Ecuador (Love
In Chile, the first record of the species is from 2006 and is based on the genetic identification of three dried shark fins that were stored in a commercial warehouse for export to the international market (Sebastian
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the geographical area occupied by the Eastern Pacific DPS at the time of ESA listing is the previously-defined core range of the species, which extends over a broad area of the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Specifically, the geographical area occupied by the Eastern Pacific DPS includes all coastal and oceanic waters between 32°N and 4°S latitude, and follows the boundary lines of the DPS for longitude from 140° W to 150° W. We find that the geographical areas outside of this delineation where scalloped hammerhead sharks have been observed (
The geographic range of the Central & SW Atlantic DPS includes all coastal and oceanic waters from 28° N. latitude to 36° S. latitude, following the boundary lines designated for this DPS. Although this range covers the territorial waters of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), as well as the Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge, there is little to no available information on the occurrence or distribution of the scalloped hammerhead shark within these waters at the time of listing.
Smooth, scalloped, and great hammerhead sharks are noted as historically occurring in USVI and Puerto Rican waters. In terms of habitat use around the USVI, personal communication (from E. Kadison, Ecology Laboratory Specialist, University of the Virgin Islands) suggests that Magens Bay, St. Thomas, may be a breeding ground for hammerheads, based on anecdotal reports of large aggregations found in the bay; however, the species of the hammerheads within Magens Bay was unknown (E. Kadison, personal communication, 2015). We could find no other information on the use of Magens Bay by hammerhead sharks that could help clarify or support the anecdotal reports. Similarly, Salt River Canyon off St. Croix's north shore was also noted as a diving spot for seeing the “occasional” large hammerhead, but species was not identified (N2Theblue 2014). The scalloped hammerhead shark is included in St. Croix's checklist of marine and inland fishes based only on records of two individuals that were caught as bycatch in 1991 during fishing operations for bigeye scad (Tobias 1991; Smith-Vaniz and Jelks 2014). We also received a photo of a hammerhead shark from a researcher conducting a longline shark survey in the area, but upon inspection identified the shark as a great hammerhead (E. Kadison, pers. comm. 2015). In fact, the great hammerhead shark is noted as a “common Caribbean species” in these waters, often found inshore and around coral reefs (Smith-Vaniz and Jelks 2014), and thus may likely be the species observed in the above anecdotal reports.
In waters off Puerto Rico, we found no information on the present distribution or habitat use of scalloped hammerhead sharks. The only information indicating the species' historical occurrence in Puerto Rican waters is its inclusion in a 1974 technical report that provides the common names of fishes in Puerto Rico (Erdman 1974; revised in 1983). Similarly, the presence and distribution of scalloped hammerhead sharks in the Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge are unknown. In 1998, seven scalloped hammerhead sharks were caught in the refuge during an exploratory longline fish research survey conducted by NMFS scientists (Grace
Based on the foregoing information, we cannot establish if the geographical area occupied by the listed Central & SW Atlantic DPS includes any areas under the jurisdiction of the United States. Although scalloped hammerhead sharks have been included in historical checklists or observed in fish surveys conducted over 15 years ago, we have no information to indicate that the species was present in the territorial waters of Puerto Rico, USVI, or the Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge at the time of listing. Because all three species of hammerhead sharks are noted as occurring in these waters, with the great hammerhead shark described as “common,” we cannot assume that the anecdotal reports of hammerhead sharks specifically refer to scalloped hammerhead sharks. As such, we consider the waters under U.S. jurisdiction within the Central & SW Atlantic DPS range to be unoccupied areas at the time of listing.
The geographic range of the Indo-West Pacific DPS includes all coastal and oceanic waters from 40° N. latitude to 36° S. latitude, and follows the boundary lines designated for this DPS.
Although this range covers the territorial waters of Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), American Samoa, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIAs), there is very little information on the occurrence, distribution, or use of habitat by the scalloped hammerhead shark within these waters at the time of listing. Most of the available information is based on personal observations and anecdotal reports of the species. In Guam, anecdotal reports suggest that Apra Harbor may have been used as a pupping ground for scalloped hammerhead sharks, based on the observed presence of young scalloped hammerhead sharks in Sasa Bay over a decade ago (D. Burdick, Research Associate, University of Guam, personal communication 2015). Over the time period of 1982-2004, a NMFS scientist working in Guam indicated that he personally observed and caught juvenile and adult scalloped hammerhead sharks in Apra Harbor (specifically the channel that connects the inner harbor and Sasa Bay) and observed juveniles near northern Piti, the Pago Bay river mouth, and the Ylig River mouth, and adults outside of Pago Bay and Tarague Beach (G. Davis, Assistant Regional Administrator for Habitat Conservation, NMFS, personal communication 2015). More recent observations, from Dr. Terry Donaldson (Professor, University of Guam), suggest that adults may periodically use Apra Harbor. He noted that he has personally observed them, albeit only very rarely over the past few years, in Apra Harbor and the inner harbor. The sharks occurred as solitary individuals (not schools), and he detailed one observation of a large adult feeding on a fish in the inner harbor. He also noted that neither he nor his technicians have observed any juveniles in Apra Harbor over the last few years.
In terms of occurrence around the PRIAs, we received personal communication from NMFS research
In addition, these NMFS scientists, who survey at more than 50 U.S.-affiliated islands, atolls, and reefs, have never recorded scalloped hammerheads in American Samoa, Guam, or CNMI while conducting these reef surveys. Corroborating these observations, fishery observer data from 2006-2010 indicate that scalloped hammerhead sharks are also rarely observed caught in the American Samoa longline fishery, which primarily operates within the U.S. EEZ around American Samoa (Simmonds 2014). We could find no information on the present occurrence or distribution of scalloped hammerhead sharks around CNMI.
The above information gives us confirmation of the past and perhaps present occurrence of the species in U.S. waters within the range of the Indo-West Pacific DPS. Specifically, at the time of listing, the geographical areas occupied by the Indo-Pacific DPS likely include waters off Guam and the PRIAs. Although observations of scalloped hammerhead sharks in American Samoa waters are rare, they still occur and, thus, we cannot rule out that habitats in these waters were being used, at least periodically, at the time of listing. However, given the severe lack of information about or observations of scalloped hammerhead sharks within waters of CNMI, we cannot conclude that this area was occupied by the species at the time of listing.
Based on the information above, we consider the geographical area occupied by Indo-West Pacific DPS of the scalloped hammerhead shark at the time of listing to include the waters under U.S. jurisdiction off Guam, the PRIAs, and American Samoa, and we consider the geographical areas occupied by the Eastern Pacific and Central & SW Atlantic DPSs at the time of listing to not include any waters under U.S. jurisdiction.
Within the geographical area occupied by an endangered or threatened species at the time of listing, critical habitat consists of specific areas on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species (hereafter also referred to as “essential features”) and that may require special management considerations or protection. Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) defines the terms “conserve,” “conserving,” and “conservation” to mean: “to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.” Further, our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) for designating critical habitat state that physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of a given species and that may require special management considerations or protection may include: (1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
For scalloped hammerhead shark DPSs, we define conservation as the use of all methods and procedures necessary to bring scalloped hammerhead sharks to the point at which factors related to population ecology and vital rates indicate that the population is recovered in accordance with the definition of recovery in 50 CFR 402.02. Important factors related to population ecology and vital rates include population size and trends, range, distribution, age structure, gender ratios, age-specific survival, age-specific reproduction, and lifetime reproductive success. Based on the available knowledge of scalloped hammerhead shark population ecology and life history, we have identified four biological behaviors that are critical to the goal of increasing survival and population growth: (1) Feeding, (2) pupping, (3) migration, and (4) breeding. In the following section, we evaluate whether there are physical and biological features of the habitat areas known or thought to be used for these behaviors that are essential to the species' conservation because they facilitate or are intimately tied to these behaviors and, hence, support the life-history needs of the species. Because these behaviors are essential to the species' conservation, facilitating or protecting each one is considered a key conservation objective for any critical habitat designation for this species.
Scalloped hammerhead sharks are opportunistic predators, with a high degree of trophic plasticity (Torres-Rojas
The species is also thought to undergo an ontogenetic change in feeding habits. This change is estimated to occur when the species reaches sizes of around 100 cm TL (Klimley 1987; Torres-Rojas
Although little is known regarding the foraging behavior of adults, based on tracking and diet studies, it is thought that adults (and sub-adult females that have already migrated offshore) tend to exhibit a diel feeding pattern (Ketchum
Overall, the best available information indicates that scalloped hammerhead sharks are opportunistic feeders. The species, regardless of life stage, does not appear to be limited by foraging grounds, adapting to its present habitat by feeding on whatever prey are available. There does not appear to be a specific prey species that is required to be present in a habitat for successful foraging to occur. Nor are there any specific habitat characteristics that appear to be intimately tied with feeding behavior. As such, we are unable to identify any particular physical or biological features of areas that facilitate successful foraging. While the above information suggests that scalloped hammerhead sharks may aggregate in tropical waters, near seamount ridges or productive coastal areas that face the impinging current, these areas are thought to be used more for refuging purposes as opposed to foraging habitats. Although these refuging habitats may be linked to foraging activities, this is purely speculative. Additionally, the particular physical or biological features of these refuging habitats that make them preferential for scalloped hammerhead aggregations are uncertain and their importance to the life-history needs of scalloped hammerhead sharks is unknown. Furthermore, no scalloped hammerhead sharks of the Central & SW Atlantic DPS or Eastern Pacific DPS have been observed refuging or foraging in the geographic areas under U.S. jurisdiction. The same holds true for the Indo-West Pacific DPS, with the exception of a single, personal observation of an adult scalloped hammerhead shark feeding on a large mullet in the Inner Harbor of Guam (T. Donaldson, pers. comm. 2014). For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to identify any physical or biological features related to foraging that are essential to the conservation of the
Scalloped hammerhead sharks are known to give birth in warm tropical and temperate shallow, inshore waters. The specific nursery habitat requisites for such factors as temperature, depth, and substrate, are highly variable. Below is a summary of the information on the habitat characteristics of known scalloped hammerhead nursery areas, identified as such based on the: (1) Common presence of neonates, YOY, and juvenile scalloped hammerhead sharks in the area, (2) long residency period of immature individuals in these areas (
Nursery habitats for scalloped hammerhead sharks are generally identified as shallow inshore areas, including bays and estuaries. Kāne′ohe Bay in Hawaii, for example, is a well-studied and confirmed nursery ground for scalloped hammerhead sharks (and is part of the range of the identified Central Pacific DPS, for which we determined listing was “not warranted”; 78 FR 20717, April 5, 2013). Kāne′ohe Bay is the largest bay in the Hawaiian Islands (61 km
Identified nursery habitats in other regions also appear to share many of the same characteristics as those physical and biological features of Kāne′ohe Bay. For example, off the east coast of Australia, along the tropical northern Queensland coastline, there are a number of primarily shallow (<15 m) bays within which YOY scalloped hammerhead sharks of the Indo-West Pacific DPS have been observed (Simpfendorfer
Apra Harbor, Guam, may also contain nursery habitat for the Indo-West Pacific DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks, but this supposition is based only on anecdotal observations of juvenile sharks in Sasa Bay and both adults and juveniles in the channel connecting the inner Apra Harbor and Sasa Bay (personal communication, G. Davis and D. Burdick 2015). Sasa Bay, which is a no-take marine reserve, is a shallow bay (0-11 m) that primarily consists of sand/mud substrate, with patch reefs in deeper water and a mangrove swamp that extends along the coastline. The inner Apra Harbor has been extensively modified through dredging, construction activities, and landfills undertaken by the U.S. Navy since 1945 (Smith
Off South Africa, nursery habitats for the Indo-West Pacific DPS have been identified on the continental shelf off
In the range of the Eastern Pacific DPS, Zanella
Other sites in the Eastern Pacific DPS range that have been identified as nursery areas are located in the Gulf of California and further south off the Pacific coast of Mexico. Sites in the Gulf of California include coastal waters off Mazatlan (Sinaloa) and San Francisquito and El Barril (Baja California). In the eastern Gulf of California, features of the areas where large numbers of YOY and juvenile
The Gulf of Tehuantepec, off the southern coast of Mexico, is also thought to be an important spawning and nursery area for
From the best available information, the physical features of nursery areas in the Atlantic appear to be generally similar to those found in the Pacific. In the range of the Central & SW Atlantic DPS, Kotas
Based on the foregoing information regarding known or presumed pupping areas for scalloped hammerhead sharks, the general physical oceanographic features that appear to be associated with this habitat include: (1) Relatively shallow inshore bays/estuaries with areas of moderate to high freshwater input; (2) tropical water temperatures (≥20 °C); (3) muddy/silty/sandy substrate bottom; (4) presence of patchy reefs, mangrove systems, or seagrass beds; and (5) areas within inshore habitats of higher turbidity/current flow. However, because of the variability in the presence of the above physical features in the different identified nursery areas (
As mentioned previously, for the listed DPSs, there are no confirmed nursery grounds for the species in U.S. waters. Due to the rarity of the presence of the Central & SW Atlantic DPS in waters under U.S. jurisdiction, both historically and presently, these waters do not likely provide important pupping habitat. Similarly, the waters under U.S. jurisdiction in the Eastern Pacific are considered unoccupied areas used solely by vagrants of the Eastern Pacific DPS and only during rare weather events. As such, these waters do not provide important nursery habitat for the DPS. The anecdotal observations from Guam lend support to the potential use of waters under U.S. jurisdiction by juvenile scalloped hammerhead sharks; however, without knowledge of the essential features that create meaningful pupping grounds, we cannot identify any areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. Simply the observation of the presence of juveniles utilizing these waters (with unknown abundance, duration, habitat use, or frequency of occurrence) is not enough information to indicate that these areas contain physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Additionally, the waters under U.S. jurisdiction for the Indo-West Pacific DPS represent an extremely small percentage of the suitable habitat available for the DPS (which comprises the waters of the entire Indian Ocean and Western Pacific Ocean), and based on the absence of any recent observations of juvenile scalloped hammerhead sharks utilizing waters off Guam, these waters under U.S. jurisdiction do not appear to contain important nursery habitat that could be characterized as essential for the conservation of the DPS.
Both small and large-scale migratory movements are a necessary component in the life-history of the scalloped hammerhead shark. Examples of small scale migratory movements (<300 km) include those undertaken for feeding and refuging (Ketchum
Although the available information suggests that these sharks do undergo short and long-distance migrations, the space or migratory corridor used by scalloped hammerhead sharks during these migrations remains unknown. In addition, we are not aware of any migratory tracking studies that have been conducted in waters under U.S. jurisdiction and, therefore, have no information on any potential migratory corridors that may exist within waters under U.S. jurisdiction for the listed scalloped hammerhead DPSs. Based on the foregoing information, we cannot identify any specific essential features that define migratory habitat for scalloped hammerhead sharks.
Important areas for mating are largely unknown for scalloped hammerhead sharks. To identify potential sites as mating grounds, we looked for the presence of both mature females and males. For the most part, adult females are usually found schooling offshore with subadult females (Klimley 1985; Ketchum
Additionally, adult females, including ones that have recently given birth, are occasionally observed in identified nursery habitats along with adult males (Clark 1971; Dudley and Simpfendorfer 2006; Hussey
Section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the ESA defines critical habitat to include specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a threatened or endangered species at the time it is listed if the areas are determined by the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the species. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) specify that we shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h) also state: “Critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in other areas outside of United States jurisdiction.”
As discussed previously, the waters off California are not considered part of the geographical area occupied by the Eastern Pacific DPS at the time of listing. We also conclude that it is not an unoccupied area essential to the DPS' conservation, given the rare, errant use of the area by vagrant scalloped hammerhead sharks in the past, with this use associated only with sporadic weather events, and the fact that we have no information to suggest the area is essential to the conservation of the DPS. Furthermore, for the areas under U.S. jurisdiction off USVI, Puerto Rico, Navassa Wildlife Refuge, and CNMI, which we could not conclude were occupied by the applicable scalloped hammerhead DPSs at the time of listing, we found no information that would indicate these areas are essential for the conservation of the listed DPSs. Scalloped hammerhead sharks are highly migratory, and although they may have historically been observed in these waters, the lack of historical or anecdotal data or information tends to suggest these may have been rare or sporadic occurrences as the shark passed through these waters. We do not find that these unoccupied areas under U.S. jurisdiction, which additionally comprise such small portions of the overall ranges of the listed DPSs, are essential to the conservation of the listed DPSs. As such, we find that there are no identifiable areas outside the geographical areas occupied by the listed DPSs that would meet the definition of critical habitat for the scalloped hammerhead shark DPSs.
Any conservation actions for the listed scalloped hammerhead shark DPSs that would bring these DPSs to the point that the measures of the ESA are no longer necessary will need to be implemented by foreign nations. As noted in the final rule (79 FR 38213, July 3, 2014), the significant operative threats to the listed scalloped hammerhead DPSs are overutilization by foreign industrial, commercial, and artisanal fisheries and inadequate regulatory mechanisms in foreign nations to protect these sharks from the heavy fishing pressure and related mortality, with illegal fishing identified as a significant problem in areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Thus, recovery of the listed DPSs is highly dependent upon international conservation efforts. This includes increased protection for the listed DPSs from fishery-related mortality, especially within those foreign areas described above where the biological behaviors that support the life-history needs of the listed DPSs have been observed (
Given the best available information and the above analysis of this information, we find that there are no identifiable occupied areas under the jurisdiction of the United States with physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species or unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of the species. Therefore, we conclude that for the Eastern Pacific DPS, Central & SW Atlantic DPS, and the Indo-West Pacific DPS, there are no specific areas within their respective ranges and under U.S. jurisdiction that meet the definition of critical habitat. Since there is not any habitat of scalloped hammerhead sharks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction that is considered to be critical habitat, there is no critical habitat to designate under ESA section 4(a)(3)(A)(i).
Although we have determined that no areas meet the definition of critical habitat for the listed scalloped hammerhead DPSs, the areas occupied by the DPSs under U.S. jurisdiction will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, as well as consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA for Federal activities that may affect the listed scalloped hammerhead DPSs, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action. Through the consultation process, we will continue to assess effects of Federal actions on these species and their habitat. In addition, the prohibitions against importing, exporting, engaging in foreign or interstate commerce, or “taking” of the scalloped hammerhead sharks of the Eastern Pacific DPS and Eastern Atlantic DPS under section 9 of the ESA continue to apply.
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Air Force Chief of Chaplains Office (DOD/USAF/HQ AF/HC), Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 19, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Chaplain Corps Accounting Center, 266 F Street, Suite 2, JBSA Randolph, TX 78150-4583, email
The Chaplain Corps Accounting Center (CCAC) requires the forms to be completed and submitted, to have all the information needed to process fund requests and payments. The calculation of average burden per response uses fifteen minutes as an average time for each form. The only members of the public that are affected are those who require funds from the CCAC.
Civilian Human Resources Agency, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 19, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Department of Defense, Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) G-1, Civilian Human Resources Agency (CHRA), ATTN: Civilian Information Services Division (CISD), Mark A. Patterson, Chief, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060, or call CISD at 703-806-3232.
This OMB number is being requested to support recruitment and personnel management of local foreign national (FN) employment. The following systems currently fall under this scope: Local National Staffing Suite [LNSS] and Korean National Recruitment System [KNRS].
LNSS consists of the Local National Recruitment System (LNRS) and the Europe Summer Hire Application (ESH).
AE Form 690-70A is the application form that employment respondents must complete to be considered for positions in Germany. The form is written in both English and German. The completed form is stored as a record of the respondent's personal information, education, employment history, military history, and availability, as well as a list of applicable language(s) and other skills. If this form is not submitted, the respondent will not be eligible for employment positions through LNSS. Personally Identifiable Information (PII) on the AE Form 690-70A is entered into the LNSS system by the Administration Assistant.
Local National Recruitment System (LNRS) is a component of Local National Staffing Suite (LNSS). LNRS was developed to automate German Local National (LN) recruitment processes for United States Army Europe (USAREUR). The application supports the Army Civilian Personnel Operations Center (CPOC) and services Civilian Personnel Advisory Centers (CPACs) in Europe. The application is primarily used to automate local national recruitment processes for USAREUR including Priority Placement, Reduction In Force, and Referrals, while taking into account the Local National Tariff Agreements. LNRS is accessible at the following URL:
Europe Summer Hire Application (ESH) is a component of Local National Staffing Suite (LNSS). ESH is a Web-based government developed Linux application accessible at
Korean National Recruitment System (KNRS) respondents are employment applicants. KNRS was developed to provide immediate and accurate status/response to applicants via a Web-based interface. KNRS provides customers with a timely and more reliable customer service system. It also eliminates the long wait periods when recruiting Korean National (KN) employees to support the Army's FN mission. Respondents (applicants) enter their own employment application information directly into the electronic form in the system. The electronic form is a record of the respondent's personal information, education, employment history, military history, and other qualifications and skills. If this electronic form is not submitted, the respondent will not be eligible for the KN employment position. KNRS is accessible at the following URL:
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 17, 2015.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 19, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the STEM Program Office, Mark Center, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Room 17C08, Alexandria, Virginia 22350-3600, ATTN: Karen Saunders or call STEM Program Office, at 571 2372 6542.
Respondents are college students or current Department of Defense (DoD) employees who provide academic information to the SMART Program Office. The application is an on line form requesting academic merit, and compatibility with DoD workforce needs. The information collected consists of applications submitted by members of the general public and current DoD personnel who actively choose to become involved in SMART and thus become subject to information collection. The applications include information on academic records, community and volunteer activities, letters of recommendations from faculty and community leaders, a list of publications, work experience, certification of citizenship and personal contact information. All this information is necessary to evaluate and rank each candidate's credentials for awarding scholarships and determining whether the candidate meets specific DoD facility workforce needs. Having qualified candidates provide academic and work force compatibility with the mission of the DoD is essential in maintaining a STEM work for DoD Laboratories.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 17, 2015.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela at (202) 502-7411or by email
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 17, 2015
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
FSA is initiating a formal assessment program of the Guaranty Agencies that will ensure the continued confidentiality and integrity of data entrusted to FSA by students and families. The assessment will identify security deficiencies based on the Federal standards described in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications. The comprehensive self-assessment links all questions with a NIST control. This collection of information impacts 28 independently owned Guaranty Agencies (GAs) dispersed throughout the U.S. Each agency is under signed agreement with the Department of Education to service Federal Family Education Loans that have been turned over from the lending institutions to the GAs for the purpose of student loan collections.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's (Commission) staff will attend the following meeting related to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO)—PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Joint and Common Market Initiative (Docket No. AD14-3-000):
MISO/PJM Joint Stakeholder Meeting—November 18, 2015
The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters, 720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032-7574.
The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Valerie Teeter, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8538 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On November 3, 2015, Roger Rolfe filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Rolfe Hydro Project would have an installed capacity of 2 kilowatts (kW) and would be located at the vault on the 6-inch diameter irrigation pipe on the Rolfe property. The project would be located near the town of
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
1. By letter filed November 3, 2015, Darren K. Vaughn informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Flying W Project No. 10309, originally issued July 21, 1987
2. Scott M. Fodor, Trust is now the exemptee of the Scott M. Fodor, Trust Project, No. 10309. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Scott M. Fodor, Trust, 10644 W. Coleman Road, Barryton, MI 49305.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it has adopted amendments to its In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate (together “2011 TRU Amendments”) regulation. By letter dated March 2, 2015, CARB asked that EPA authorize these amendments pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act. CARB seeks confirmation that certain 2011 TRU Amendments are within the scope of prior authorizations issued by EPA, or, in the alternative, that such amendments merit full authorization. CARB also seeks a full authorization for other 2011 TRU Amendments. This notice announces that EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing to consider California's authorization request for the 2011 TRU Amendments and that EPA is now accepting written comment on the request.
EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's request on January 6, 2016, at 10 a.m. ET. EPA will hold a hearing only if any party notifies EPA by December 15, 2015 to express interest in presenting the Agency with oral testimony. Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notice to David Dickinson at the email address noted below. If EPA receives a request for a public hearing, that hearing will be held at the William Jefferson Clinton Building (North), Room 5528 at 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. If EPA does not receive a request for a public hearing, then EPA will not hold a hearing, and instead will consider CARB's request based on written submissions to the docket. Any party may submit written comments until February 8, 2016.
Any person who wishes to know whether a hearing will be held may call David Dickinson at (202) 343-9256 on or after December 16, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0224, by one of the following methods:
• Online at
•
•
•
•
EPA will make available for public inspection materials submitted by CARB, written comments received from any interested parties, and any testimony given at the public hearing. Materials relevant to this proceeding are contained in the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, maintained in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0224. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality also maintains a Web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver and authorization
David Dickinson, Attorney-Advisor, Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., (6405J), Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9256. Fax: (202) 343-2804. Email:
CARB's TRU regulations require TRU engines to meet in-use standards that vary by horsepower (hp) range and have two levels of emissions stringency (LETRU and ULETRU—low-emission and ultra-low emission transportation refrigeration units, respectively) that are phased in over time.
By letter dated March 2, 2015, CARB submitted a request to EPA pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for confirmation that its 2011 Amendments fall within the scope of EPA's previous authorizations, or, in the alternate, a full authorization for those amendments. Included in the within-the-scope request are the 2011 Amendments that (1) extend the ULETRU compliance date for MY 2003 and older TRUs that complied with the LETRU standard by specified dates; (2) extend compliance dates when compliant technology is unavailable or delayed for certain reasons; (3) establish new exemptions;
Section 209(e)(1) of the CAA prohibits states and local governments from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or requirement relating to the control of emissions from certain types of new nonroad vehicles or engines. The Act also preempts states from adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements related to the control of emissions from other types of new nonroad vehicles or engines as well as non-new nonroad engines or vehicles. Section 209(e)(2), however, requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to authorize California to adopt and enforce standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from such preempted vehicles or engines if California determines that California standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. However, EPA shall not grant such authorization if it finds that (1) the determination of California is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California does not need such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (3) California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with [CAA section 209].
(a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable federal standards.
(b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator finds that any of the following are true:
(1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
(2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
(3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.
(c) In considering any request to authorize California to adopt or enforce standards or other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate consideration to safety factors (including the potential increased risk of burn or fire) associated with compliance with the California standard.
In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not attempt to regulate
If California amends regulations that EPA has already authorized, California can seek EPA confirmation that the amendments are within the scope of the previous authorization. A within-the-scope confirmation, without a full authorization review, is permissible if three conditions are met.
In considering whether to grant authorizations for accompanying enforcement procedures tied to standards for which an authorization has already been granted, EPA addresses questions as to whether the enforcement procedures undermine California's determination that its standards are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, and whether the enforcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a).
As stated above, EPA is offering the opportunity for a public hearing, and is requesting written comment on issues relevant to a within-the-scope analysis and a full authorization analysis. Specifically, we request comment on whether the 2011 Amendments (1) undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as comparable federal standards; (2) affect the consistency of California's requirements with section 209 of the Act; or (3) raise any other new issues affecting EPA's previous waiver or authorization determinations.
Should any party believe that the amendments are not within the scope of the previous authorizations, EPA also requests comment on whether the 2011 Amendments meet the criteria for a full authorization. Specifically, we request comment on: (a) Whether CARB's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious; (b) whether California needs such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; and (c) whether California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 209 of the Act.
If a hearing is held, the Agency will make a verbatim record of the proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense. Regardless of whether a public hearing is held, EPA will keep the record open until February 8, 2016. Upon expiration of the comment period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request based on the record from the public hearing, if any, all relevant written submissions, and other information that she deems pertinent. All information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0224.
Persons with comments containing proprietary information must distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest extent possible and label it as “Confidential Business Information” (CBI). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision on a submission labeled as CBI, then a non-confidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or information should be submitted to the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the public docket, submissions containing such information should be sent directly to the contact person listed above and not to the public docket. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed, and according to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without further notice to the person making comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) will host a two (2) public teleconference meetings on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time and Tuesday, December 15, 2015, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Items to be discussed by NEJAC over these coming meetings include respectively: U.S. Housing and Urban Development Final Rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and Assessment Tool; and Chemical Plant Safety and Community Revitalization: 20 Years of the Brownfields Program.
There will be an opportunity for the public to comment on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. and Tuesday, December 15, 2015 from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to the topics of the meeting.
For additional information about registering to attend the meeting or to provide public comment, please see “REGISTRATION” under
The NEJAC teleconference meeting on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, will begin promptly at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The NEJAC teleconference meeting on Tuesday,
Questions or correspondence concerning the teleconference meeting should be directed to Karen L. Martin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. (MC2201A), Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at 202-564-0203; via email at
Registrations for the December 2, 2015, meeting will be processed at
Registrations for the December 15, 2015, meeting will be processed at
Due to a limited number of telephone lines, attendance will be on a first-come, first served basis. Pre-registration is required.
1. Registration for the December 2, 2015, teleconference meeting closes at Noon, Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 25, 2015. The deadline to sign up to speak during the public comment period, or to submit written public comments, is also Noon, Wednesday, November 25, 2015.
2. Registration for the December 15, 2015, teleconference meeting closes at Noon, Eastern Time on Thursday, December 10, 2015. The deadline to sign up to speak during the public comment period, or to submit written public comments, is also Noon, Thursday, December 10, 2015.
The Charter of the NEJAC states that the advisory committee “will provide independent advice and recommendations to the Administrator about broad, crosscutting issues related to environmental justice. The NEJAC's efforts will include evaluation of a broad range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, community engagement and economic issues related to environmental justice.”
Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to seven (7) minutes. To accommodate the number of people who want to address the NEJAC, only one representative of a particular community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak. Written comments can also be submitted for the record. The suggested format for individuals providing public comments is as follows: Name of speaker; name of organization/community; city and state; and email address; brief description of the concern, and what you want the NEJAC to advise EPA to do. Written comments received by registration deadline, will be included in the materials distributed to the NEJAC prior to the teleconference. Written comments received after that time will be provided to the NEJAC as time allows. All written comments should be sent to Karen L. Martin, EPA, via email at
For information about access or services for individuals requiring assistance, please contact Karen L. Martin, at (202) 564-0203 or via email 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 information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 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 19, 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
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice is hereby given of the final approval of a proposed information collection by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated authority. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statement and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
• FR 2052a: Bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies subject to the liquidity coverage ratio (together, U.S. firms) with total assets of $700 billion or more or with $10 trillion or more in assets under custody; U.S. firms with total assets of less than $700 billion and with assets under custody of less than $10 trillion, but total assets of $250 billion or more or foreign exposure of $10 billion or more; U.S. firms with total assets of $50 billion or more but total assets of less than $250 billion and foreign exposure of less than $10 billion; Foreign banking organizations (FBOs) that are identified as LISCC firms; FBOs with U.S. assets of $250 billion or more that are not identified as LISCC firms; and FBOs with U.S. assets of $50 billion or more but U.S. assets less than $250 billion that are not identified as LISCC firms.
• FR 2052b: U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs) not controlled by FBOs with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more but less than $50 billion
The Federal Reserve initially proposed to revise the FR 2052a report by: (1) Modifying the firms that are required to respond, the applicable asset threshold, and frequency of reporting; (2) including a data structure that subdivides three general categories of inflows, outflows, and supplemental items into 10 distinct data tables; (3) requiring all U.S. firms with total assets of $250 billion or more or foreign exposure of $10 billion or more and all FBOs with total U.S. assets of $50 billion or more to report liquidity profiles by major currency for each material entity of the reporting institution; (4) collecting more detail regarding securities financing transactions, wholesale unsecured funding, deposits, loans, unfunded commitments, collateral, derivatives, and foreign exchange transactions; and (5) changing the structure of the collection to an XML format from a spreadsheet format.
The Federal Reserve also initially proposed to revise the FR 2052b reporting panel by modifying the firms that are required to respond and the applicable threshold, and eliminating monthly reporting.
The scope
For purposes of the FR 2052 reports, a U.S. firm is a top-tier bank holding company (BHC), as that term is defined in section 2(a) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(a)) and section 225.2(c) of the Federal Reserve's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.2(c)), organized under the laws of the United States and excludes any bank holding company that is a subsidiary of a foreign banking organization (FBO). For the purposes of the FR 2052 reports, foreign banking organization has the same meaning as in section 211.21(o) of the Federal Reserve's Regulation K (12 CFR 211.21(o)) and includes any U.S. bank holding company that is a subsidiary of an FBO. The FR 2052b report only applies to U.S. BHCs with total consolidated assets of between $10 billion and $50 billion that are not controlled by FBOs.
The Federal Reserve has modified the scope of application for the FR 2052a from the proposal, which is set forth in the table above. These changes will not add additional burden on any firm based on the proposed scope of application, and in some cases the changes may result in less burden. Regarding the changes, the Federal Reserve will accord U.S. firms and FBOs of similar size the same treatment because similarly situated firms should be treated in a similar manner. Second, the Federal Reserve will implement three categories of treatment for both U.S. firms and FBOs, according to the asset size of the firm and whether it has been identified as a LISCC firm.
As discussed further below, nonbank financial companies designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) are not included in the reporting panel for the FR 2052a.
Firms whose asset sizes or identification as a LISCC firm causes them to cross the threshold from the third category to the second category, or from the second category to the first category, will be required to meet the applicable reporting requirements of the new category within three months of crossing the threshold. A firm whose asset size causes it to cross the threshold to the third category will have to meet the applicable reporting requirements within one year of crossing the threshold.
In addition to these changes, the Federal Reserve will consider future enhancements to the thresholds that define the applicability of the reporting requirements that are more sensitive to liquidity risk. Any future enhancements would be proposed and subject to comment, and if finalized, firms whose reporting requirements change based on those enhancements would be provided sufficient time to comply.
Some commenters raised concerns about whether the proposed implementation schedule would allow sufficient time to implement reporting requirements. One commenter noted that banking organizations with less than $700 billion in assets and firms subject to the modified LCR methodology by the liquidity coverage ratio in the United States, finalized in September 2014 (LCR rule)
Other commenters noted that banks that were not required to report on the prior versions of the FR 2052a report should be provided more time to comply and suggested that these organizations not be required to comply with FR 2052a reporting until July 2016, January 2017, or July 2017, to allow sufficient time to enhance IT and other systems. A commenter pointed out that even if an extension was provided, these firms could continue to report on the FR 2052b in the interim.
Similarly, one FBO commenter noted that implementing the proposed FR 2052a with its more granular and expanded data requirements would require considerable resources and operational effort to comply by February 2, 2016 for certain entities that were not required to report on the prior versions of the FR 2052a report. The commenter noted that G-SIBs were given a two-year lead time prior to the implementation of the FR 2052a reporting requirements and it would be appropriate for current FR 2052b filers and new FR 2052a filers to receive similar lead time.
One commenter noted that the implementation schedule for FBOs with U.S. assets of $50 billion or greater and U.S. broker-dealer assets of less than $100 billion is unrealistic. The commenter noted that reporting challenges are magnified for FBOs that have not previously had the experience of filing the FR 2052a or FR 2052b. The commenter further noted that many of these firms are working to come into compliance with the Federal Reserve Board's intermediate holding company (IHC) requirement by July 2016. The commenter suggested that new FBO filers start with the FR 2052b report before moving to the FR 2052a report, with implementation dates of July 2016 for the FR 2052b and July 2017 for the FR 2052a. The commenter also noted that the LCR rule does not apply to many of these firms and that for FR 2052b FBO filers, no further requirement should be applied until the IHC requirements are clarified and there is an LCR rule in place for FBOs.
Another commenter requested that firms forming IHCs have a reasonable transition time for reporting on a consolidated basis and legal entity basis and that entities required to consolidate pursuant to the IHC requirement, effective July 2016, should not be required to report on the FR 2052a beforehand.
Based on comments and analysis of the transitions and effective dates, the Federal Reserve has extended the
In addition, for U.S. firms with total consolidated assets of $700 billion or more or with assets under custody of $10 trillion or more, and FBOs identified as LISCC firms, the Federal Reserve will collect data as of November 30, 2015 with a request for submission on December 2, 2015. Responses to this one-time information collection are voluntary.
The Federal Reserve received several comments related to the amount of time needed to prepare reports for submission. Most commenters disagreed with the proposal's requirement that reporting forms be submitted within two days of the as-of date. One commenter noted that the two-day lag does not provide enough time for quality assurance necessary for a regulatory report. In addition, some commenters expressed concern that the two-day lag is practically only 1.5 days because the proposed submission time is noon. One commenter specifically requested that advanced approaches firms with $700 billion or more in assets be given a full two-day reporting window.
Other commenters stated that 15 days is an appropriate time period for firms that would have been required to report monthly and for firms that are currently reporting on the FR 2052b. One commenter suggested a five-day lag for regional banks subject to the full LCR. Another commenter offered that advanced approaches firms with less than $700 billion in assets and new FBO filers should have five days to submit the reports.
As illustrated in the table below, the Federal Reserve will implement the following transition periods for the timing of the data submission. All firms subject to FR 2052a reporting requirements, except for U.S. firms with total assets of $700 billion or more or with assets under custody of $10 trillion or more, and FBOs identified as LISCC firms, will have a T+15 submission requirement at their first effective date. Subsequently, the timing of the submission will be reduced until it reaches the final timing of submission requirement. Because of the importance of timely liquidity data for the largest firms, the final timing of submission will remain T+2 days. However, for U.S. firms with total assets of $50 billion or more, but less than $250 billion and foreign exposure of less than $10 billion, and FBOs with U.S. assets of $50 billion or more and less than $250 billion that are not identified as LISCC firms, the final timing of submission requirement will be T+10 days due to these firms' smaller contributions to systemic risk. Additionally, for all FR 2052a filers, as set forth in the instructions, the Federal Reserve will change the submission time on the submission date to 3:00 p.m. ET, which will provide firms additional time to prepare the data submissions. The T+15 timing of submission requirement for the FR 2052b will remain unchanged.
The Federal
One commenter noted that less complex financial institutions that are not internationally active should not be held to the same reporting standards as larger and much more complex financial institutions. Financial institutions that are less complex do not present significant risk to the financial system. Another commenter noted that the FR 2052a is not tailored to take into account the risk profile of the reporting firms. A few commenters disagreed with the requirement to provide specific maturity data for five years. These commenters argued that the data would not provide beneficial supervisory information. One of these commenters suggested that only payments within one year should be reported.
One commenter noted that disaggregating principal and interest payments would be burdensome to respondents and unhelpful for the Federal Reserve because this approach would not consider balance sheet growth or other behavioral assumptions. Two commenters commented on derivatives reporting. One noted that the granular derivatives details required by the proposal are not necessary for calculating the LCR, and implementing it for regional banks would be burdensome and unhelpful to the Federal Reserve. The other commenter noted that the granularity of derivative reporting for advanced approaches banking organizations with less than $700 billion in assets and modified LCR banking organizations should align with the LCR. The commenter asserted that the proposed requirement to segregate information about payables and receivables and provide the margin information in more granular detail than required by the LCR would impose tremendous burden on the collateral tracking systems of firms.
Another commenter stated that data elements related to broker-dealers are immaterial to regional banks and these banks should not be required to report them. The commenter stated that collecting that data would not be helpful to the Federal Reserve and would impose a burden on the banks.
The Federal Reserve received two comments on reporting by currency. One commenter stated that reporting by major currency for regional banks that are subject to the full LCR is unnecessary because their foreign activities are limited (more akin to firms subject to the modified LCR) and the LCR does not require it. The commenter stated that because current systems only record in USD, additional implementation burden would be imposed. Alternatively, the commenter suggested establishing a threshold for reporting by major currency other than USD only if the percent of foreign currency liabilities to total liabilities exceeded, for example, 5 percent. Another commenter suggested that the FR 2052a should incorporate thresholds for reporting by major currency that align with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's LCR standard's definition of “significant currency,” which is when the aggregated liabilities in that currency exceed 5 percent of total liabilities. The commenter explained that if this suggestion is followed, a firm should be required to meet the threshold for four quarters before being considered a significant currency to prevent a currency from toggling between significant and not significant.
The Federal Reserve notes that the FR 2052a was not designed solely for monitoring compliance with the LCR; rather, it is a supervisory liquidity report that also allows for monitoring compliance with the LCR. In the context of that supervisory purpose and based on an analysis of the reporting firms, the FR 2052a will be better tailored to the size and complexity of the firms. First, and as mentioned above, the timing of the data submission will be extended to T+10 days for the smaller firms subject to FR 2052a reporting requirements. In addition, the FR 2052a will be revised to have tailored data elements. The granularity of maturity data will be modified for firms subject to the FR 2052a that are not U.S. firms with total assets of $700 billion or more or with assets under custody of $10 trillion or more or FBOs identified as LISCC firms, with only the residual value of products reported beyond one year. The residual value data will be required because it is necessary to have sufficient information on the liquidity profile of the firm. For the smaller firms subject to the FR 2052a, certain products, such as unencumbered assets, inflows from traditional loans, and interest and dividends payable, will be reported according to Appendix IV-b of the instructions. Consistent with the instructions, these firms will be permitted to report these particular products with less granularity, even within one year.
The Federal Reserve views as inappropriate the elimination of reporting requirements related to broker-dealer activities for an entire segment of firms; however, where appropriate, certain products are tailored, as detailed in the instructions. For example, for derivatives collateral reporting, firms that do not meet a certain threshold may use a default sub-product. Additionally, the product for reporting interest payments may be ignored for amortizing products if the interest is aggregated with principal and reported in the product for principal amounts. Also, certain products which implicate inflows that are not part of the LCR calculation may be optionally ignored, such as sleeper collateral receivables and derivative collateral substitution capacity. There are also certain products that are specific to services provided by broker-dealers, so the FR 2052a will not require those specific products to be reported unless the firm has a significant broker-dealer.
Lastly, firms subject to FR 2052a requirements that historically have less foreign currency exposure will only have to report in USD and will not have to report data required by the F/X table. Thus, U.S. firms with total assets of less than $700 billion and with assets under custody of less than $10 trillion, but total assets of $50 billion or more and FBOs with U.S. assets of less than $250 billion, but U.S. assets of $50 billion or more that are not identified as LISCC firms may report solely in USD and will not have to report data required by the F/X table. All other firms subject to FR 2052a requirements will report in the major currencies listed in the instructions and report data required by the F/X table. The FR 2052b will continue to be reported solely in USD.
The Federal Reserve received the following comments specific to reporting by institutions subject to the modified LCR: (1) The proposed FR 2052a report materially expands the required time period bucketing to include 60 days of daily contractual cash flows and four periods of weekly contractual cash flows requiring fundamental changes to data, systems, and processes that have already been developed to support the FR 2052a and LCR calculations that extract data based on monthly cash flows; (2) the 60-day daily period maturity buckets go beyond the 30-day period that is necessary to compute the LCR and daily time bucket should only be 30 days for firms subject to the full LCR and should not exist for firms subject to the modified LCR; (3) maturity buckets for firms subject to the modified LCR should have no more granularity than monthly, which is what is needed for the LCR; (4) daily maturity buckets for days 31-60 should be
In response to the comments on the reporting requirements for firms subject to the modified LCR, as mentioned above, the Federal Reserve notes that the FR 2052a was not designed solely for monitoring compliance with the LCR; rather, it is a supervisory liquidity report that also allows for monitoring compliance with the LCR. For that reason, there are products and maturity buckets beyond what is necessary for an LCR calculation. All of the products and maturity buckets are required to appropriately monitor liquidity risk within a firm subject to the FR 2052a reporting requirement. For example, to understand a firm's liquidity risk profile, it is necessary to have information beyond the LCR's 30-day time horizon and on a parent-only basis, in addition to the consolidated holding company. However, as described above, for the smaller firms subject to the FR 2052a, the Federal Reserve will allow less granular maturity bucketing for certain products where receiving less maturity information is appropriate, such as unencumbered assets, inflows from traditional loans, and interest and dividends. Furthermore, as noted above, the Federal Reserve will extend the transitions and effective dates to provide sufficient time for system enhancements to meet the increased data requirements.
One commenter noted that nonbank financial companies designated by FSOC for supervision by the Board are implicated as covered in the FR 2052a update notice. The commenter requested that these companies have an opportunity to comment on the FR 2052a after being designated but before imposition of the LCR requirement and filing on the FR 2052a.
Non-bank financial companies designated by FSOC for supervision by the Federal Reserve will not be automatically subject to FR 2052a reporting requirements based on being subject to the LCR. Because these companies may become subject to the LCR by rule or order, the Federal Reserve believes it is appropriate to subject them to supervisory reporting requirements also by rule or order to ensure that such requirements are appropriate for the specific nonbank financial company.
The Federal Reserve proposed to require the data in XML format. Two commenters requested that the Federal Reserve make available an Excel template to facilitate internal review of the data submission.
In addition, the Federal Reserve requested comment on whether it should publish a description of how the FR 2052a data will be used to monitor LCR compliance. Several commenters agreed that the Federal Reserve should publish a description and specifically requested that the Federal Reserve should provide a reporting template that would illustrate how to calculate the reporting entity's LCR.
In response to comments, the Federal Reserve has revised the FR 2052a instructions to include an appendix that maps the provisions of the LCR to the unique data identifiers that can be used to calculate an LCR. The Federal Reserve will not provide an Excel or other template, as firms subject to FR 2052a reporting requirements may, based on the description of data tables in the instructions and the appendix describing an LCR calculation, develop their own MIS to analyze FR 2052a data. This mapping document is not a part of the LCR rule or a component of the FR 2052a report. Firms may use this mapping document solely at their discretion.
One commenter provided an appendix describing certain technical issues with the calculation of the LCR using FR 2052a data. The Federal Reserve has resolved these issues through the appendix to the instructions that describes an LCR calculation by mapping the LCR provisions to the FR 2052a data. Another commenter noted that “material legal entity” should be defined more clearly, as entities falling under the definition would be an additional reporting entity. The Federal Reserve revised the instructions to provide additional information about what constitutes a material entity. In addition, the Federal Reserve will implement a supervisory process to determine which entities are deemed material. As described in the instructions, the Federal Reserve will consider characteristics of the entity, such as size, complexity, business activities, and overall risk profile.
Another commenter noted that collateral value and collateral class fields should be better explained, in particular with respect to non-investment securities collateral, cross collateralization, and when collateral is all business assets. The Federal Reserve finalized as initially proposed because Appendix III to the instructions includes all collateral classes that are relevant for this report.
The proposal would have required firms submitting the FR 2052a report to retain data for six months. The Federal Reserve will require firms to retain that data for one year after it is submitted because the Federal Reserve believes that one year is an appropriate amount of data in the event a firm needs to review previously submitted data.
In accordance with section 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number is 7100-0361. The Board reviewed the proposed information collection under authority delegated to the Board by OMB.
The FR 2052 reporting forms are a part of the Federal Reserve's supervisory surveillance program in liquidity risk management. The information collected on the FR 2052 reporting forms will provide timely information on firm-specific liquidity risks during periods of stress and will be used to monitor the overall liquidity profile of institutions supervised by the Federal Reserve. These data provide detailed information on the liquidity risks within different business lines of these firms. In addition the information collected on the FR 2052a will be used to monitor compliance with the LCR by firms subject to the rule. The Federal Reserve will use this data to identify and analyze systemic and idiosyncratic liquidity risk issues at reporting firms and across the financial system and will also prepare analytical reports that detail funding vulnerabilities at reporting firms.
The Board's collection of information on forms FR 2052a and FR 2052b is
The Board estimates that the burden of reporting on the revised FR 2052a will be between 120 and 400 hours per response for each reporting form. The Board estimates that the one-time implementation burden will be approximately 400 hours, which includes both the building of systems necessary to gather and report the data, as well as training of responsible staff. For firms that are required to report daily, the Board estimates that the burden for each response will be approximately 220 hours, while firms that required to report monthly will spend approximately 120 hours to prepare each response. The Board estimates that the burden of reporting on the revised FR 2052b will be approximately 60 hours per response for each reporting firm.
The Board has considered the potential impact of the final rule on small companies in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, a small entity includes a depository institution, bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company with total assets of $550 million or less (a small banking organization). As discussed above, the information collected on the FR 2052 reporting forms will be used to monitor the overall liquidity profile of large banking organizations supervised by the Board. These forms would collect information on the liquidity risks within different lines of business of these organizations. Firms would be required to report either daily, monthly, or quarterly depending on their size and complexity. The Board did not receive any comments on the proposed information collection notice regarding its impact on small banking organizations.
The FR 2052 reporting forms will apply to BHCs with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more and to FBOs with U.S. assets of $50 billion or more. The FR 2052 reporting forms do not apply to small banking organizations, so there would be no projected compliance requirements for small banking organizations.
The Board believes that the final information collection will not have a significant impact on small banking organizations supervised by the Board and therefore believes that there are no significant alternatives that would reduce the economic impact on small banking organizations supervised by the Board.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 2, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
2.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has been
For information, contact Samuel L. Groseclose D.V.M., M.P.H., Designated Federal Officer, Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, CDC, HHS, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D44, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, Telephone 404/639-0637, Fax 404/639-7977.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
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 CDC Model Performance Evaluation Program (MPEP) for Mycobacterium tuberculosis Susceptibility Testing information collection. CDC is requesting a three-year approval for extension to the previously approved project used to collect data from participants to monitor and evaluate performance and practices among national laboratories performing M. tuberculosis susceptibility testing. Participation in this program is one way laboratories can ensure high-quality laboratory testing, resulting in accurate and reliable testing results.
Written comments must be received on or before January 19, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0103 by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
Please note: 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.
CDC Model Performance Evaluation Program (MPEP) for Mycobacterium tuberculosis Susceptibility Testing (OMB #0920-0600, expiration. 5/31/2016)—Extension—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
As part of the continuing effort to support domestic public health objectives for treatment of tuberculosis (TB), prevention of multi-drug resistance, and surveillance programs, CDC is requesting the Office of Management and Budget to extend approval of data collection from participants in the Model Performance Evaluation Program (MPEP) for Mycobacterium tuberculosis Drug Susceptibility Testing. There are no changes requested for approval to number of respondents, information collection forms, burden, and other methodology to collect data from participants.
While the overall number of cases of TB in the U.S. has decreased, rates still remain high among foreign-born persons, prisoners, homeless populations, and individuals infected with HIV in major metropolitan areas. To reach the goal of eliminating TB, the Model Performance Evaluation Program for Mycobacterium tuberculosis Drug Susceptibility Testing is used to monitor and evaluate performance and practices among national laboratories performing
By providing an evaluation program to assess the ability of the laboratories to test for drug resistant M. tuberculosis strains, laboratories also have a self-assessment tool to aid in optimizing their skills in susceptibility testing. The information obtained from the laboratories on susceptibility practices and procedures is used to establish variables related to good performance, assessing training needs, and aid with the development of practice standards. The data collected over the previous three-year period enabled CDC to correlate testing practices with performance and to use this information to design training modules targeted to participants encouraging the adaptation of advanced testing methods. Extension of data collection will allow CDC to evaluate the effectiveness of these training modules by continually monitoring laboratory performance.
Participants in this program include domestic clinical and public health laboratories. Data collection from laboratory participants occurs twice per year. The data collected in this program will include the susceptibility test results of primary and secondary drugs, drug concentrations, and test methods performed by laboratories on a set of performance evaluation (PE) samples. The PE samples are sent to participants twice a year. Participants also report demographic data such as laboratory type and the number of tests performed annually.
There is no cost to respondents to participate other than their time.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
Times and Dates:
This meeting is also accessible by Webinar:
For Participants:
Participants can join the event directly at:
For Participants:
Participants can join the event directly at:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 80 FR 58479-58485, dated September 29, 2015) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and the Office of Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in its entirety the title and function statements for the
Delete in its entirety the title and function statements for the
After the
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has been renewed for a 2-year period through October 31, 2017.
For information, contact Robin Moseley, M.A.T., Designated Federal Officer, Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases, CDC, HHS, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D10, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, telephone 404/639-4461 or fax 404/235-3562.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) 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; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Interventions to Reduce Shoulder MSDS in Overhead Assembly (OMB No. 0920-0964 Exp. 04/30/2015)—Reinstatement—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention. Under Public Law 91- 596, sections 20 and 22 (Section 20-22, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970), NIOSH has the responsibility to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers. In this capacity, NIOSH proposes to conduct a study to assess the effectiveness and cost-benefit of occupational safety and health (OSH) interventions to prevent musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among workers in the Manufacturing (MNF) sector.
A reinstatement is necessary because there were significant delays in implementing the tooling intervention in the intended work processes. These delays were to a large degree due to business conditions and were outside of the control of investigators. As result, the study achieved approximately 50% of the original sample size approved by OMB in the original ICR request. The reinstatement is necessary to extend the duration of the ICR so that the additional participants can enrolled and data collection can continue.
The U.S. Manufacturing sector has faced a number of challenges including an overall decline in jobs, an aging workforce, and changes in organizational management systems. Studies have indicated that the average age of industrial workers is increasing and that older workers may differ from younger workers in work capacity, injury risk, severity of injuries, and speed of recovery (Kenny et al., 2008; Gall et al., 2004; Restrepo et al., 2006). As the average age of the industrial population increases and newer systems of work organization (such as lean manufacturing) are changing the nature of labor-intensive work, prevention of MSDs will be more critical to protecting older workers and maintaining productivity.
This study will evaluate the efficacy of two intervention strategies for reducing musculoskeletal symptoms and pain in the shoulder attributable to overhead assembly work in automotive manufacturing. These interventions are, (1) an articulating spring-tensioned tool support device that unloads from the worker the weight of the tool that would otherwise be manually supported, and, (2) a targeted exercise program intended to increase individual employees' strength and endurance in the shoulder and upper arm stabilizing muscle group. As a primary prevention strategy, the tool support engineering control approach is preferred; however, a cost-efficient opportunity exists to concurrently evaluate the efficacy of a preventive exercise program intervention. Both of these intervention approaches have been used in the Manufacturing sector, and preliminary evidence suggests that both approaches may have merit. However, high quality evidence demonstrating their effectiveness, by way of controlled trials, is lacking. This project will be conducted as a partnership between NIOSH and Toyota Motors Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (TEMA), with the intervention evaluation study taking place at the Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Inc. (TMMK) manufacturing facility in Georgetown, Kentucky. The prospective intervention evaluation study will be conducted using a group-randomized controlled trial multi-time series design. Four groups of 25-30 employees will be established to test the two intervention treatment conditions (tool support, exercise program), a combined intervention treatment condition, and a control condition. The four groups will be comprised of employees working on two vehicle assembly lines in different parts of the facility, on two work shifts (first and second shift). Individual randomization to treatment condition is not feasible, so a group-randomization (by work unit) will be used to assign the four groups to treatment and control conditions. Observations will be made over the 24-month study period and questionnaires will include the Shoulder Rating Questionnaire (SRQ), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, a Standardized Nordic Questionnaire for body part discomfort, and a Work Organization Questionnaire. In addition to the questionnaires a shoulder-specific functional capacity evaluation test battery will be administered at 90 and 210 days, immediately pre- and post-intervention, to confirm the efficacy of the targeted exercise program in improving shoulder capacity.
In summary, this study will evaluate the effectiveness of two interventions to reduce musculoskeletal symptoms and pain in the shoulder associated with repetitive overhead work in the manufacturing industry and the associated research project will disseminate the results of evidence-based prevention practices to the greatest audience possible.
There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden is 236 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 Integrating Community Pharmacists and Clinical Sites for Patient-Centered HIV Care. CDC is requesting a 3-year approval for revision to the previously approved project to administer a staff communication questionnaire for medical providers in order to determine how and if the model program improves patient outcomes through improved communication and collaboration between patients' clinical providers and pharmacists.
Written comments must be received on or before January 19, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0102 by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
Please note: 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.
Integrating Community Pharmacists and Clinical Sites for Patient-Centered HIV Care (OMB 0920-1019, expires 8/31/2018)—Revision—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Medication Therapy Management (MTM) is a group of pharmacist provided services that is independent of, but can occur in conjunction with, provision of medication. Medication Therapy Management encompasses a broad range of professional activities and cognitive services within the licensed pharmacists' scope of practice and can include monitoring prescription filling patterns and timing of refills, checking for medication interactions, patient education, and monitoring of patient response to drug therapy.
HIV-specific MTM programs have demonstrated success in improving HIV medication therapy adherence and persistence. While MTM programs have be shown to be effective in increasing medication adherence for HIV-infected persons, no MTM programs have been expanded to incorporate primary medical providers in an effort to establish patient-centered HIV care. To address this problem, CDC has entered into a public-private partnership with Walgreen Company (a.k.a. Walgreens pharmacies, a national retail pharmacy chain) to develop and implement a model of HIV care that integrates community pharmacists with primary medical providers for patient-centered HIV care. The model program will be implemented in ten sites and will provide patient-centered HIV care for approximately 1,000 persons.
The patient-centered HIV care model will include the core elements of MTM as well as additional services such as individualized medication adherence counseling, active monitoring of prescription refills and active collaboration between pharmacists and medical clinic providers to identify and resolve medication related treatment problems such as treatment effectiveness, adverse events and poor adherence. The expected outcomes of the model program are increased retention in HIV care, adherence to HIV
On May 16, 2014 OMB approved the collection of standardized information from ten project sites over the three-year project period and one retrospective data collection during the first year of the three-year project period. The retrospective data collection will provide information about clients' baseline characteristics prior to participation in the model program which is needed to compare outcomes before and after program implementation. On August 17, 2015 OMB approved the conduct of key informant interviews with program clinic and pharmacy staff in order to evaluate the program processes, administration of a staff communication questionnaire, and OMB approved the collection of time and cost data to be used to estimate the cost of the model program.
CDC seeks approval to administer a staff communication questionnaire for medical providers in order to determine how and if the model program improves patient outcomes through improved communication and collaboration between patients' clinical providers and pharmacists. The staff communication questionnaire for medical providers will be administered twice to program clinic staff. The staff communication questionnaire for medical providers is different from the previously improved staff communication questionnaire; the staff communication questionnaire for medical providers will be administered to program clinic staff whereas the staff communication questionnaire will be administered to program pharmacy staff.
Pharmacy, laboratory, and medical data will be collected through abstraction of all participant clients' pharmacy and medical records. Pharmacy, laboratory and medical data are needed to monitor retention in care, adherence to therapy, viral load suppression and other health outcomes. Program specific data, such as the number of MTM elements completed per project site and time spent on program activities, will be collected by program. Qualitative data will be gathered from program staff through in-person or telephone interviews and through a questionnaire to program pharmacy staff and a separate questionnaire to program clinic staff.
The data collection will allow CDC to conduct continuous program performance monitoring which includes identification of barriers to program implementation, solutions to those barriers, and documentation of client health outcomes. Performance monitoring will allow the model program to be adjusted, as needed, in order to develop a final implementation model that is self-sustaining and which can be used to establish similar collaborations in a variety of clinical settings. Collection of cost data will allow for the cost of the program to be estimated.
There is no cost to participants other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 6,043.
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has been renewed for a 2-year period through November 5, 2017.
For information, contact Gwendolyn Cattledge, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, HHS, 1600 Clifton Road NE., M/S F63, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, Telephone 770/488-4655.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 80 FR 58479-58485, dated September 29, 2015) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and the Office of Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in its entirety the title and function statements for the
Delete in its entirety the title and function statements for the
Delete in its entirety the title and function statements for the
After the
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Cancellation of notice with comment period.
The notice “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” on Monitoring and Reporting for the Core State Violence and Injury Prevention Program Cooperative Agreement (80 FR 68543, November 5, 2015) is cancelled. This notice invited comment on a proposed information collection entitled “Monitoring and Reporting for the Core State Violence and Injury Prevention Program Cooperative Agreement,” where CDC would use the information collected to monitor cooperative agreement awardees and to identify challenges to program implementation and achievement of outcomes. This proposed data collection also received publication for public comment on November 9, 2015 under Docket ID 60Day-16-16BZ; Docket No. CDC-2015-0095.
(404) 639-7570 or send comments to CDC, Leroy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS D-74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Data collection for the PII evaluation includes a number of components beginning at different points in time. Phase 1 (approved August 2012, OMB# 0970-0408) included data collection for a cross-site implementation evaluation and site-specific evaluations of two PII grantees (Washoe County, Nevada, and the State of Kansas). Phase 2 (approved August 2013) included data collection for two more PII grantees (Illinois DCFS and one of two interventions offered by the Los Angeles LGBTQ Center's Recognize Intervene Support Empower [RISE] project). Phase 3 (approved July 2014) included data collection for an evaluation of another PII grantee intervention and two additional cross-site PII studies. The grantee intervention was a second RISE intervention, the Care Coordination Team (CCT). The two PII cross-site studies were a cost study and an administrative data study.
The current request if for Phase 4 and includes data collection for another PII grantee, the California Department of Social Services' California Partnership for Permanency (CAPP) project.
Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB COMMENT: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Organ-Specific Warnings: Internal Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use—Labeling for Products That Contain Acetaminophen.” The guidance is intended to inform manufacturers of certain nonprescription (also referred to as over-the-counter or OTC) internal analgesic, antipyretic, and antirheumatic (IAAA) drug products that contain acetaminophen of the circumstances for which FDA does not intend to object to the inclusion of a liver warning that differs from that required under FDA regulations, provided the warning appears as described in the guidance.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• 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:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• 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
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Emily Baker, Office of Unapproved Drugs and Labeling Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7524,
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Organ-Specific Warnings: Internal Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use—Labeling for Products That Contain Acetaminophen.” In the
Under that rule, the labeling for OTC IAAA products that contain acetaminophen and are labeled for adults only must include the liver warning described below. Similarly, the labeling for OTC IAAA products that contain acetaminophen and are labeled for adults and children under 12 year of age must include a similar liver warning described below.
Adults Only (§ 201.326(a)(1)(iii)(A) (21 CFR 201.326(a)(1)(iii)(A))):
Liver warning: This product contains acetaminophen. Severe liver damage may occur if you take • more than [insert maximum number of daily dosage units] in 24 hours, which is the maximum daily amount [optional: “for this product”] • with other drugs containing acetaminophen • 3 or more alcoholic drinks every day while using this product.
Adults and children under 12 years of age (§ 201.326(a)(1)(v)(A) (21 CFR 201.326(a)(1)(v)(A))):
Liver warning: This product contains acetaminophen. Severe liver damage may occur if • adult takes more than [insert maximum number of daily dosage units] in 24 hours, which is the maximum daily amount [optional: “for this product”] • child takes more than 5 doses in 24 hours • taken with other drugs containing acetaminophen • adult has 3 or more alcoholic drinks every day while using this product.
Although the currently proposed maximum daily dose of acetaminophen is 4,000 milligrams (mg), some OTC IAAA products that contain acetaminophen have directions for use that provide a maximum daily dose of acetaminophen for that product that is less than 4,000 mg. For example, for some OTC IAAA drug products that contain both acetaminophen and one or more other active ingredients, the maximum number of daily dosage units might be limited by an active ingredient other than acetaminophen, which could result in a maximum daily dose of acetaminophen that is less than 4,000 mg for that product. The optional statement, “for this product,” in the first bullet of the liver warning is intended to address these situations by clarifying that the maximum number of daily dosage units for a product might not reflect the maximum daily dose of acetaminophen.
However, the Agency understands that in certain circumstances, despite this optional statement, the wording of the first bullet in the warnings shown above might be interpreted as indicating that severe liver damage is associated with a total daily dose of acetaminophen that is less than 4,000 mg. This suggestion is not the intent of the regulation. To address this potential confusion, the Agency does not intend to object to the inclusion of a liver warning that differs from that required under § 201.326(a)(1)(iii)(A) and § 201.326(a)(1)(v)(A), provided the warning appears as described in the guidance.
In the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on Organ-Specific Warnings: Internal Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use—Labeling for Products That Contain Acetaminophen. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
The recommendations in this guidance are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because they do not constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that STRENSIQ (asfotase alfa), manufactured by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.
Larry Bauer, Rare Diseases Program, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6408, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4842, FAX: 301-796-9858, email:
FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that STRENSIQ (asfotase alfa), manufactured by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. Asfotase alfa is a long-term enzyme replacement therapy for patients with infantile- and juvenile-onset hypophosphatasia (HPP). HPP is a rare genetic disorder that affects the development of bones and teeth.
For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to
For further information about STRENSIQ (asfotase alfa), go to the
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is requesting nominations to fill vacancies on the National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice (NACNEP). The NACNEP is in accordance with the provisions of 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 297t; Section 851 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The Council is governed by provisions of Public Law 92-463, which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
The agency will receive nominations on a continuous basis.
All nominations should be submitted to Regina Wilson, Advisory Council Operations, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, 11w45c, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Mail delivery should be addressed to Regina Wilson, Advisory Council Operations, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, at the above address, or via email to:
Erin Fowler, Designated Federal Official, NACNEP, by phone at 301-443-7308 or by email at
Under the authorities that established the NACNEP and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, HRSA is requesting nominations for new committee members. The NACNEP provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary and Congress in preparation of general regulations and concerning policy matters arising in the administration of Title VIII, including the range of issues relating to the nurse workforce, education, and practice improvement. Annually, the NACNEP prepares and submits to the Secretary, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, and the Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, a report describing the activities of the council, including findings and recommendations made by the NACNEP concerning the activities under Title VIII.
Specifically, HRSA is requesting nominations for voting members of the NACNEP representing leading authorities in the various fields of nursing, higher and secondary education, and associate degree schools of nursing; and from representatives of advanced education nursing groups (such as nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and nurse anesthetists); from hospitals and other institutions and organizations which provide nursing services; from practicing professional nurses; from the general public; and full-time students enrolled in schools of nursing. The majority of NACNEP members shall be nurses.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will consider nominations of all qualified individuals with the areas of subject matter expertise noted above. Individuals may nominate themselves or other individuals, and professional associations and organizations may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership. Nominations shall state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the NACNEP and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude the NACNEP membership. Potential candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning financial interests, consultancies, research grants, and/or contracts that might be affected by recommendations of the NACNEP to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest.
A nomination package should include the following information for each nominee: (1) A letter of nomination stating the name, affiliation, and contact information for the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
HHS strives to ensure that the membership of HHS Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that the views of women, all ethnic and racial groups, and people with disabilities are represented on HHS Federal advisory committees. The Department also encourages geographic diversity in the composition of the committee. The Department encourages nominations of qualified candidates from all groups and locations. Appointment to the NACNEP shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is requesting nominations to fill vacancies on the National Advisory Council on Migrant (NACMH). The NACMH is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 218, section 217 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended and governed by provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2).
The agency will receive nominations on a continuous basis.
All nominations should be addressed to the Designated Federal Official, NACMH, Strategic Initiatives and Planning Division, Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, Suite 17C-05, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 or via email to:
CDR Jacqueline Rodrigue, MSW, Designated Federal Official, NACMH, at (301) 443-1127 or email
As authorized under section 330(g) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 254b, the Secretary
The NACMH consults with and makes recommendations to the Secretary and the HRSA Administrator, concerning the organization, operation, selection, and funding of migrant health centers and other entities under grants and contracts under section 330 of the PHS Act.
The NACMH shall consist of fifteen members, including the Chair and Vice Chair. The Secretary selects all members of the NACMH. Twelve members are from governing boards of migrant health centers and other entities assisted under section 330 of the PHS Act. Of these twelve members, at least nine shall be chosen from among those members of such centers or grantees and who are familiar with the delivery of health care to migratory and seasonal agricultural workers. The remaining three members are individuals who are qualified by training and experience in the medical sciences or in the administration of health programs. Members shall be appointed for terms of 4 years. New members filling a vacancy that occurred prior to expiration of a term may serve only for the remainder of such term. Members may serve after the expiration of their terms until their successors have taken office, but no longer than 120 days.
Specifically, HRSA is requesting nominations for:
•
•
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will consider nominations of all qualified individuals.
A complete nomination package should include the following information for each nominee:
(1) A NACMH Nomination form; (2) three reference letters; and (3) a biographical sketch of the nominee and a copy of his/her curriculum vitae. The nomination package must also state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the NACMH and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
HHS strives to ensure that the membership of HHS federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that the views of women, all ethnic and racial groups, and people with disabilities are represented on HHS federal advisory committees. The Department also encourages geographic diversity in the composition of the committee. The Department encourages nominations of qualified candidates from all groups and locations. Appointment to the NACMH shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice and request for comments. Request for extension of approval.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law (Pub. L.) 104-13 [44 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 3507(a)(1)(D)], the Indian Health Service (IHS) invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the information collection titled, “Indian Health Service (IHS) Sharing What Works—Best Practice, Promising Practice, and Local Effort (BPPPLE) Form,” Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0917-0034.
This previously approved information collection project was last published in the
All information submitted is on a voluntary basis; no legal requirement exists for collection of this information. The information collected will enable the Indian health systems to: (a) Identify evidence based approaches to
(a) Whether the information collection activity is necessary to carry out an agency function;
(b) whether the agency processes the information collected in a useful and timely fashion;
(c) the accuracy of the public burden estimate (the estimated amount of time needed for individual respondents to provide the requested information);
(d) whether the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates are logical;
(e) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and
(f) ways to minimize the public burden through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
To request additional information, please contact Tamara Clay by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 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.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP)/Division of Cancer Therapy and Diagnostics (DCTD), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) 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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no capital costs, operating costs or maintenance costs. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 22,645 hours.
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. Appendix 2); 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 purpose of this meeting is to evaluate requests for preclinical development resources for potential new therapeutics for the treatment of cancer. The outcome of the evaluation will provide information to internal NCI committees that will decide whether NCI should support requests and make available contract resources for development of the potential therapeutic to improve the treatment of various forms of cancer. The research proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposed research projects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Toby Hecht, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Development Experimental Therapeutics Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 3W110, Rockville, MD 20850, (240) 276-5683
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-day Notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0003, abstracted below, that TSA will submit to OMB for revision in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. Aircraft operators must provide certain information to TSA and adopt and implement a TSA-approved security program. These programs require aircraft operators to maintain and update records to ensure compliance with security provisions outlined in 49 CFR part 1544.
Send your comments by January 19, 2016.
Comments may be emailed to
Joanna Johnson at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-3651.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This information collection is mandatory for aircraft operators. As part of their security programs, affected aircraft operators are required to maintain and update, as necessary, records of compliance with the security program provisions set forth in 49 CFR part 1544, including maintaining records of compliance for selected crew and security employees. Part 1544 also requires affected aircraft operators to submit security program amendments to TSA when applicable and to make their security programs and associated records available for inspection and copying by TSA to ensure transportation security and regulatory compliance.
In addition, part 1544 requires the affected aircraft operators to submit information on aircraft operators' flight crews and other employees, passengers, and cargo. The information collection includes information regarding security program (SP) updates, amendments, and changes; criminal history records check (CHRC) applications; recordkeeping on SPs, CHRCs, training and other recordkeeping matters; watchlist matching for employees and reporting matches to TSA; watchlist matching for passengers in case of Secure Flight outages; and incident and suspicious activity reporting. Aircraft operators may provide the information electronically or manually.
Aircraft operators must ensure that certain flight crew members and employees submit to and receive a criminal history records check (CHRC). These requirements apply to flight crew members and employees with unescorted access authority to a Security Identification Display Area (SIDA) or who perform screening, checked baggage, or cargo functions. As part of the CHRC process, the individual must provide identifying information, including fingerprints. Additionally, aircraft operators must maintain these records, and records associated with compliance with Security Directives, and make them available to TSA for inspection and copying upon request.
TSA estimates that there will be approximately 801 respondents to the information requirements described above, with a total annual burden estimate of approximately 2,262,268 hours.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 19, 2016.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0126 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2012-0004. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
(3)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies 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 agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing- Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Devasia Karimpanal, Business Relations and Oversight Contracts Division, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410;
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gives notice that the City of New York (the City), through its Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as the “Responsible Entity,” as that term is defined by 24 CFR 58.2(a)(7)(i), and as the Lead Agency in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will evaluate the environmental and social impacts of alternatives that are being proposed to improve coastal and social resiliency by installing an integrated flood protection system on the East Side of Southern Manhattan between Montgomery Street on the south and East 23rd Street on the north (with an alternative that extends to East 25th Street). Such measures would be designed to address the impacts of coastal flooding on the quality of the human environment due to both storm hazards and sea level rise. The City, through OMB, is the Grantee of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds that have been appropriated under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Pub. L. 113-2, approved January 29, 2013) related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas resulting from a major disaster that was declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (Stafford Act) in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013. This project includes funds that were awarded as the “BIG U” as part of HUD's Rebuild by Design competition.
The proposed EIS will address the environmental review requirements of NEPA, the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (6 NYCRR Part 617), and the New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR). This Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS is therefore, being published in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations found at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and HUD regulations found at 24 CFR part 58 and is announcing that a public scoping process on the EIS is commencing.
Comments on the Draft Scope of Work to prepare a Draft EIS are requested by this notice and will be accepted until December 21, 2015.
Comments on the Draft Scope of Work to prepare a Draft EIS are requested by this notice and will be accepted by the individual named in this notice under the heading
The public and agencies will also be offered an opportunity to comment on the purpose and need, range of alternatives, level of detail, methodologies, and all elements of the Draft Scope of Work through public and agency outreach that will consist of: A public scoping meeting (described below); a public hearing on the Draft EIS; meetings with the applicable Cooperating, Involved, and Interested Agencies; and meetings with Section 106 Consulting Parties, including federally recognized Indian tribes. Once completed and released, the Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment.
Following the public scoping process, a Draft EIS will be prepared that analyzes the Proposed Action. Once the Draft EIS is certified as complete, a notice will then be sent to appropriate government agencies, groups, and individuals known to have an involvement or interest in the Draft EIS and particularly in the environmental impact issues identified therein. A Notice of Availability of the DEIS will be published in the
With OMB serving as the Lead Agency, the EIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA, CEQ regulations found at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and HUD regulations found at 24 CFR part 58. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 5304(g) and HUD's regulations found at 24 CFR part 58 (Environmental Review Procedures for Entities Assuming HUD Environmental Responsibilities), HUD has provided for assumption of its NEPA authority and NEPA lead agency responsibility by OMB for the purposes of administering the CDBG-DR Program in New York City. The EIS will also comply, as necessary, with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” and other applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations. (The New York City Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR) will be the Lead Agency for the SEQRA and CEQR processes, which will be coordinated with the NEPA requirements.)
Further information and a copy of the Draft Scope of Work may be obtained by contacting Calvin Johnson, Assistant Director CDBG-DR, OMB, 255 Greenwich Street, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10007,or via email at
The City of New York, acting through OMB, under the authority of HUD's regulations at 24 CFR Part 58, and in cooperation with other Cooperating, Involved, and Interested agencies, is proposing to prepare an EIS that will analyze the potential environmental and social effects of alternatives that are being proposed to improve coastal and social resiliency and reduce coastal flooding impacts on the East Side of Southern Manhattan. This project was awarded $335 million in funds as the “BIG U” as part of HUD's Rebuild by Design competition.
The Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force launched Rebuild by Design in June 2013, a multi-stage regional design competition to promote resilience for the Sandy-affected region. HUD conducted the competition under the authority of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, and administered the competition in partnership with philanthropic, academic, and nonprofit organizations. The goal of the competition was two-fold: To promote innovation by developing regionally-scalable but locally-contextual solutions that increase resilience in the region, and to implement selected proposals with both public and private funding dedicated to this effort. The competition represented a policy innovation as HUD set aside CDBG-DR funding specifically to incentivize implementation of winning projects and proposals. The competition process aimed to strengthen understanding of regional interdependencies, fostering coordination and resilience both at the local level and across the U.S. For more information on the competition, please visit:
Hurricane Sandy significantly impacted the East Side of Manhattan, including the proposed project area (defined above), highlighting existing deficiencies in the City's resiliency and ability to adequately protect vulnerable populations and critical infrastructure from flooding during major storm events. These impacts included extensive inland flooding due to tidal surge with extensive damage to residential and commercial property, impacts to critical health care facilities, and the failure of critical power, transportation, and water and sewer infrastructure. Addressing the vulnerability of the proposed project area to coastal storms and protecting critical infrastructure and resources in light of the likelihood of more frequent and intense flood events is essential to the City's resiliency planning and would align with the Coastal Protection Initiatives as described in the City's
The Proposed Action consists of the installation of an integrated flood protection system on the East Side of Southern Manhattan between Montgomery Street on the south and East 23rd Street on the north for the purposes of reducing flood hazards, protecting a diverse and vulnerable
• Provide a reliable flood protection system for the flood hazard area that lies between East 23rd Street on the north and Montgomery Street on the south;
• Improve access to, and enhance open space resources along the waterfront, including East River Park and Stuyvesant Cove Park;
• Respond quickly to the urgent need for increased flood protection and resiliency, particularly for vulnerable communities within the flood hazard area; and
• Achieve implementation milestones and project funding allocations as established by HUD.
The Proposed Action is composed of two project areas, Project Area One and Project Area Two. Project Area One extends south from Cherry Street along Montgomery Street to Pier 42 and continues north along the waterfront to East 13th Street. Project Area Two extends from East 13th Street north to East 23rd Street and then west along East 23rd Street to First Avenue. The EIS will discuss the alternative designs for these project areas that were considered for analysis, identify those that were eliminated from further consideration because they do not meet the stated purpose and need, and identify those that will be analyzed further. It is expected that project alternatives will continue to be developed and refined during the public scoping process, with input from the public, agencies, and other stakeholders. The EIS alternatives analysis will consist of a comparison of the impacts under each alternative pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58, as well as how well each alternative achieves the Proposed Action's purpose and need. This process, which will be described in detail in the EIS, will lead to the designation of a Preferred Alternative. At this time, it is anticipated that the following alternatives will be analyzed.
The No Action Alternative assumes that no flood control measures are installed in the proposed project area and that current trends relating to impacts from coastal storms and sea level rise will continue. The No Action Alternative will also assume that Con Edison would continue any planned resiliency projects at its East 14th Street generating station and substations, that Pier 42 at Montgomery Street would continue to be reconstructed as a public open space, that the Houston Street bridge over the FDR Drive would be reconstructed as is currently proposed by the New York City Department of Transportation, and that a number of other projects would be implemented both within and near the proposed project area through the 2022 analysis year.
To ensure that a flood protection system is feasible and meets the project's purpose and need, various design options for integrated flood protection and enhanced waterfront open space and connections were developed. One of these alternatives is the Flood Protection System with Park Improvements Alternative. This alternative meets the flood protection objectives of the Proposed Action using a combination of integrated flood protection systems that include engineered berms, floodwalls, deployables and drainage improvements, which is expected to include the following.
• Engineered berms (also referred to as a “bridging berm”). Engineered berms elevate the existing topography as a line of flood protection and, therefore, require a wider space in order to be installed. They are typically constructed of a compacted fill material core, capped by stiff clay to withstand storm waves, with a stabilizing landscaped cover. These berms can be integrated into a park setting and are also considered adaptable to future design needs. Floodwalls (see below) are also used in conjunction with a berm at locations where there are horizontal space limitations. In certain reaches of Project Area One, berms are also combined with neighborhood connections across the FDR Drive to create “bridging berms” that provide the dual benefit of improved neighborhood access with flood protection. Engineered berms are proposed to be used for flood protection within East River Park in Project Area One and within Stuyvesant Cove Park in Project Area Two.
• Floodwalls. Floodwalls are narrow, vertical flood protection structures with a below-grade foundation that are designed to withstand both storm surge and waves. They are typically constructed of steel, reinforced concrete, or a combination of materials, with a reinforced concrete cap, and can be integrated as a design feature into a park setting. Floodwalls can be used where there are horizontal space limitations and when there is a design objective to protect existing recreational facilities by narrowing the footprint of the flood protection system. Floodwalls are proposed to be used as flood protection (in combination with berms) along the interior limits of East River Park in Project Area One (adjacent to the FDR Drive) and along the west (or inland) side of the FDR Drive between about East 13th and East 18th Streets in Project Area Two.
• Deployable Systems. It is necessary in many flood protection systems to provide an opening to accommodate day-to-day vehicular or pedestrian circulation along a street or sidewalk, for example. In these instances, deployable systems are used. There are several types of deployable system choices, including swing gates, roller gates, crest gates, and demountable gates. The type of system to be used depends upon a number of factors that include length of the opening that is required. With the Proposed Action, deployable systems are proposed as flood protection along inland streets and sidewalk crossings including the FDR Drive main line and ramps in both Project Area One and Project Area Two, and along East 23rd and East 25th Streets in Project Area Two.
• Sewer System Improvements. An evaluation of the need for modifications to the existing City sewer system will be undertaken to determine the resiliency needs of the proposed project area with respect to the operation of the sewer system during a storm event. Related improvements may include installing gates on sewer interceptors, flood-proofing regulators and manholes, and other improvements that address drainage service during a storm condition as may evolve during the project review.
The Flood Protection with Park Improvements Alternative incorporates a combination of these systems to achieve the flood protection objectives of the Proposed Action, and includes park improvements in East River Park and the reconstruction of Stuyvesant Cove Park. In East River Park, an integrated combination of walls and landscaped berms would be used; the landscaped berms would include enhanced passive spaces, and the existing bikeway and walkway through the park would be reconstructed. In Stuyvesant Cove Park, a berm system would be installed with a reconstructed bikeway and walkway.
Another alternative for analysis is a Flood Protection System with Park and Neighborhood Connection
Alternatives will continue to be developed and refined during the EIS scoping process with input and consultation from local, state, and federal agencies that are either involved, interested, or cooperating in this environmental review process. These agencies include, but are not limited to, the New York City Departments of Transportation and Environmental Protection, the New York State Departments of Transportation and Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers along with input provided by non-agency stakeholders and the general public. It is expected that each of the alternatives selected for analysis in the Draft EIS will include the essential flood protection measures described above, in differing configurations, and with alternative approaches to upland drainage, providing park enhancements and neighborhood connectivity. Each alternative will also incorporate approaches for managing upland drainage, including infrastructure improvements that would address combined sanitary and stormwater drainage and maintain sewer system operations during a storm event.
Each of the Proposed Action alternatives would also require water main, sewer, and utility relocations and drainage improvements, an operations and maintenance plan, utility and lighting plans, connections to other flood protection structures (
The Proposed Action described above has the potential to significantly affect the quality of the environment and an EIS will therefore be prepared in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, SEQRA, and CEQR. Responses to this notice will be used to (1) determine significant environmental issues; (2) assist in developing a range of alternatives to be considered; (3) identify issues that the EIS should address; and (4) identify agencies and other parties that will participate in the EIS process and the basis for their involvement.
A joint NEPA/SEQRA/CEQR public scoping meeting on the Draft Scope of Work to prepare the Draft EIS will be held on December 3, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at Bard High School Early College, 525 East Houston Street, New York, NY 10002. As noted above, the Draft Scope of Work is available online at:
The EIS will evaluate potential effects from the Proposed Action on: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy; Socioeconomic Conditions; Environmental Justice; Open Space; Historic and Cultural Resources; Urban Design and Visual Resources; Natural Resources; Hazardous Materials; Water and Sewer Infrastructure; Transportation; Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change; Public Health; Neighborhood Character; Construction; and Cumulative Effects.
Questions may be directed to the individual named in this notice under the heading
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
The Legal Instructions Concerning Applications for Full Insurance Benefits—Assigment of Multifamily Mortgage, in its current form and structure, can be found at
HUD proposes to make the following revisions to this document:
Under Part B, Submissions of Legal Documents after Recordation of Assignment, HUD proposes to add a new paragraphs 12 and 13 to read as follows:
12.
[Insert name of the mortgagee] affirms under penalty of law that the [describe flood insurance policy by name of insurance company or producer and policy number] described in the [Evidence of Insurance or other document name, as applicable] is in full force and effect and names the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, of Washington, DC, his/her successors and assigns, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 9230, Washington, DC 20410-0500 as loss payee as of [insert the date of assignment].
The effective date of this endorsement and mortgagee's affidavit, if applicable, should be the date the assignment of mortgage to the Secretary is filed for record. The evidence of flood insurance is acceptable if it contains language to the effect that it is for informational purposes only and does not confer rights upon the holder of the policy only if accompanied by the mortgagee's affidavit. A Certificate of Insurance is not acceptable.
13. An assignment of the mortgagee's interest in the flood insurance policy should state the following:
The interest of ____, as the Mortgagee under Policy No. ____ issued by ____ is hereby assigned to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development of Washington, DC, his/her successors and assigns. Date: ___
Existing paragraphs 12 through 16 would be unchanged except for being redesignated paragraaphs 14 through 18.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 Research and Demonstrations.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Nacheshia Foxx, Reports Liaison Officer, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
Camille Acevedo, Associate General Counsel, Legislation and Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone (202 708-1793) (this is not a toll-free number).
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications; request for public comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered or threatened species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activities. Both the Act and the National Environmental Policy Act require that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before December 17, 2015.
Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Division of Classification and Restoration, by U.S. mail at Division of Classification and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6920. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments.
Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Division of Classification and Restoration, by U.S. mail at P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6920.
The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes applicants to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of survival or propagation, or interstate commerce. Our regulations regarding implementation of section 10(a)(1)(A) permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (
Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the
Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of the following species in Arizona:
• Southwestern willow flycatcher (
• Gila chub (
• Loach minnow (
• Spikedace (
Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of black-capped vireo (
Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of black-capped vireo (
Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct salvage, transportation, research, and captive husbandry of the following species within Texas:
• Peck's Cave amphipod (
• Comal Springs dryopid beetle (
• Comal Springs riffle beetle (
• Fountain darter (
• San Marcos gambusia (
• Texas blind salamander (
• Texas wild-rice (
Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for black-capped vireo (
Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for black-capped vireo (
Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for black-capped vireo (
Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct salvage, transportation, research, and captive husbandry of the following species within Texas:
• Beetle (
• Beetle (
• Helotes mold beetle (
• Cokendolpher Cave harvestman (
• Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (
• Madla's Cave meshweaver (
• Bracken Bat Cave meshweaver (
• Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver (
• Government Canyon Bat Cave spider (
• Tooth Cave spider (
• Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion (
• Bee Creek Cave harvestman (
• Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle (
• Tooth Cave ground beetle (
• Bone Cave harvestman (
• Coffin Cave mold beetle (
• Comal Springs dryopid beetle (
• Peck's Cave amphipod (
• Comal Springs riffle beetle (
• Black-capped vireo (
• Golden-cheeked warbler (
• Barton Springs salamander (
• Texas blind salamander (
• Austin blind salamander (
• Fountain darter (
• San Marcos gambusia (
• Texas wild-rice (
Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for Houston toad (
Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of American burying beetle (
Applicant requests a new for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of American burying beetle (
Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for black-capped vireo (
Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to trap, band, and attach radio transmitters to Yuma clapper rails (
In compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
All comments and materials we receive in response to this request will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address 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 provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to review the maps of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) at least once every 5 years and make any minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of the CBRS as are necessary to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location of any CBRS unit as a result of natural forces. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has conducted this review and has prepared draft revised maps for all of the CBRS units in Alabama, all units in Florida (except for one unit that was remapped in 2014), all units in Georgia, several units in Louisiana, all units in Michigan, the only unit in Minnesota, all units in Mississippi, all units in the Great Lakes region of New York, all units in Ohio, and all units in Wisconsin. The draft maps were produced by the Service as part of a CBRS “digital conversion” project that is done in partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This notice announces the findings of the Service's review and request for comments on the draft revised maps from Federal, State, and local officials.
To ensure consideration, the Service must receive written comments by December 17, 2015.
Mail comments to Katie Niemi, Coastal Barriers Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Program, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES, Falls Church, VA 22041, or send comments by electronic mail (email) to
Katie Niemi, Coastal Barriers Coordinator; (703) 358-2071 (telephone); or
Background information on the CBRA (16 U.S.C. 3501
For information on how to access the draft revised maps, see the Availability of Draft Maps and Related Information section below.
This notice fulfills a requirement under the CBRA (16 U.S.C. 3503(f)(3)) that the Secretary publish a notice in the
The Service's review of all of the CBRS units in Alabama, all units in Florida (except for one unit that was remapped in 2014), all units in Georgia, several units in Louisiana, all units in Michigan, the only unit in Minnesota, all units in Mississippi, all units in the Great Lakes region of New York, all units in Ohio, and all units in Wisconsin resulted in a set of 205 draft revised maps, dated August 14, 2015, depicting a total of 250 CBRS units. The set of maps includes 9 maps for 10 CBRS units located in Alabama, 93 maps for 128 CBRS units located in Florida, 16 maps for 13 CBRS units located in Georgia, 15 maps for 7 CBRS units located in Louisiana, 36 maps for 46 CBRS units located in Michigan, 1 map for 1 CBRS unit located in Minnesota, 9 maps for 7 CBRS units located in Mississippi, 14 maps for 21 CBRS units located in the Great Lakes region of New York, 7 maps for 10 CBRS units located in Ohio, and 5 maps for 7 CBRS units located in Wisconsin. The Service's review of these areas found a total of 136 CBRS units that require modifications due to natural changes in the size or location of the units since they were last mapped. The Service's review of these areas also found two CBRS units that require modifications to correct administrative errors that were made in the past, on maps for Santa Rosa County, Florida, and Jackson County, Mississippi.
Following the close of the comment period on the date listed in the
Below is a summary of the changes depicted on the draft revised maps.
The Service's review found 6 of the 10 CBRS units in Alabama to have changed due to natural forces.
AL-01P: PERDIDO KEY UNIT. A portion of the northern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for erosion along the shoreline of Old River. The western boundary of the unit has been modified to account for both erosion and accretion around Florida Point.
Q01: MOBILE POINT UNIT. There are five discrete segments of Unit Q01, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in the largest segment. The southern boundary of the excluded area has been modified to account for erosion along the shoreline.
Q01P: MOBILE POINT UNIT. There are four discrete segments of Unit Q01P, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in the two eastern segments. In the easternmost segment of the unit, the eastern boundary has been modified to account for shoreline erosion along Oyster Bay. In the eastern central segment of the unit, the southern boundary of the excluded area has been modified to account for
Q01A: PELICAN ISLAND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit located west of the Isle Dauphine Golf Club has been extended northward and westward to account for the migration of Pelican Island into Dauphin Island.
Q02: DAUPHIN ISLAND UNIT. In the eastern segment of the unit, located north of Fort Gaines, a portion of the boundary has been modified to account for wetlands erosion along the western side of an unnamed channel located landward of the southern portion of Little Dauphin Island. In the western segment of the unit, located on the west end of Dauphin Island, the northern boundary has been moved further north to account for the migration of the island. The western boundary has been moved further west to account for accretion at the western tip of the island.
Q02P: DAUPHIN ISLAND UNIT. The portions of the boundary encompassing the area near North Point and along the Dauphin Island Bridge have been expanded to accommodate accreting sand and submerged shoals around the northwestern portion of Little Dauphin Island.
The Service's review found 68 of the 128 CBRS units in Florida that are included in this review to have changed due to natural forces. Additionally, the Service's review found that one of these units, FL-99, contained an administrative error that was made by the Service in 1997.
Unit FL-87P, the only Florida CBRS unit not included in this review, was remapped and referenced in notices the Service published in the
FL-03P: GUANA RIVER UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to follow the shoreline at the northeastern portion of Capos Island. The boundary has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface around portions of Lake Ponte Vedra and east of Guana River. A portion of the landward boundary near Spanish Landing has been modified to account for channel migration along the Tolomato River as visible on the new CBRS base map. The southwestern portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
FL-06P: WASHINGTON OAKS UNIT. The northwestern portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
FL-14P: PEPPER BEACH UNIT. There are two discrete segments of Unit FL-14P. Within the northern segment, primarily the Indian River Aquatic Preserve, the southern boundary has been modified along Fort Pierce Cut to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline.
FL-16P: JUPITER BEACH UNIT. A portion of the western boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of an unnamed channel near Jupiter Beach Park. A portion of the northern boundary has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of Jupiter Inlet.
FL-35: NORTH KEY LARGO UNIT. Portions of the landward boundary of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the mangroves and the shoreline along Little Card Sound. Portions of the boundaries that are coincident with Unit FL-35P have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the mangroves and shoreline along Linderman Creek, Card Sound, Barnes Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean. Portions of the boundary coincident with Unit FL-36P have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the mangroves and shoreline along El Radabob Key.
FL-35P: NORTH KEY LARGO UNIT. There are seven discrete segments of Unit FL-35P, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in five of the segments. The boundaries of the unit are primarily coincident with those of Unit FL-35. In the northernmost segment of the unit, located on Linderman Key, a portion of the boundary has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the mangroves and shoreline along Card Sound. In the next segment to the south, a portion of the boundary has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the mangroves and shoreline along Linderman Creek. The western boundary of this same segment has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the mangroves and shoreline along Card Sound. Portions of the central segment, comprised largely of Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge, have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along the Atlantic Ocean and Barnes Sound. In the two southernmost segments of Unit FL-35P, portions of the boundaries have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the mangroves and shoreline along the Atlantic Ocean. The lateral boundaries of the central segment have been extended to clarify the extent of the unit.
FL-36P: EL RADABOB KEY UNIT. Portions of the western boundary of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the mangroves and shoreline along Largo Sound. Portions of the boundary coincident with Unit FL-35 have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the mangroves and shoreline along El Radabob Key.
FL-37: RODRIGUEZ KEY UNIT. A portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to account for shoreline erosion along the Atlantic Ocean.
FL-39: TAVERNIER KEY UNIT. A portion of the northeastern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for emergent mangroves along Plantation Key. A boundary segment was added to the lateral boundaries to clarify that Tavernier Key is located within the unit.
FL-44: TOMS HARBOR KEYS UNIT. Portions of the landward boundary of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes in the configuration of the mangroves and shoreline along Toms Harbor.
FL-47P: KEY DEER/WHITE HERON UNIT. There are 15 discrete segments of Unit FL-47P, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in 4 segments. Portions of the boundary of the largest segment of the unit were modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along Cudjoe Key. Portions of the boundary that are coincident with Unit FL-52 have been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along Big Torch Key. In a central segment, located between Little Knockemdown Key and Summerland Key, portions of the boundary that are coincident with Unit FL-52 have been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline. Portions of the boundary, located in Upper Sugarloaf Sound, have been modified to account for natural changes in the configuration of the shoreline along Buttonwood Key.
FL-50: NO NAME KEY UNIT. Portions of the western boundary of the unit have been modified to account for natural changes in the configuration of the shoreline along Big Pine Key.
FL-51: NEWFOUND HARBOR KEYS UNIT. A portion of the eastern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for changes in the configuration of the mangroves and shoreline of an unnamed island located west of Long Beach.
FL-52: LITTLE KNOCKEMDOWN/TORCH KEYS COMPLEX UNIT. There are two discrete segments of Unit FL-52, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in the northern segment. A portion of the eastern boundary following Niles Channel, which is coincident with the excluded area, has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline. Portions of the northern boundary that are coincident with Unit FL-47P have been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along Big Torch Key. A portion of the southern boundary has been modified to reflect natural changes in the configuration of the mangroves and shoreline along Summerland Key. Portions of the boundary that are coincident with Unit FL-47P, located between Little Knockemdown Key and Summerland Key, have been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline.
FL-54: SUGARLOAF SOUND UNIT. There are four discrete segments of Unit FL-54, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in the two western segments. In both western segments of the unit, portions of the boundary have been modified to reflect natural changes in the configuration of the shoreline along Lower Sugarloaf Sound.
FL-55: SADDLEBUNCH KEYS UNIT. There are two discrete segments of Unit FL-55. In the northern segment of the unit, portions of the boundary have been modified to account for shoreline erosion along the western side of Shark Key. In the southern segment of the unit, portions of the boundary have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the mangroves and shoreline along Geiger Key.
FL-63P: TIGERTAIL UNIT. The lateral boundaries of the unit have been extended offshore to clarify the extent of the unit. No modifications were made to the boundaries of this unit as a result of changes due to natural forces.
FL-65P: WIGGINS PASS UNIT. A portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred along Vanderbilt Channel.
FL-67: BUNCHE BEACH UNIT. The northern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of an unnamed channel south of Big Shell Island. A portion of the western boundary has been extended westward to account for the migration of the sand sharing system in San Carlos Bay. The name of this unit has been changed from “Bunch Beach” to “Bunche Beach” to correct a spelling error.
FL-80P: PASSAGE KEY UNIT. The northern and southern lateral boundaries of the unit have been extended westward and the southern lateral boundary has been moved southward to ensure that all of the shoals are clearly within the unit.
FL-81: EGMONT KEY UNIT. The boundary of the southern segment of the unit has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred along the shoreline of Egmont Key.
FL-81P: EGMONT KEY UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along Egmont Key. The southern boundary has been moved southward to include more of the sand sharing system associated with Egmont Key.
FL-83: COCKROACH BAY UNIT. Portions of the landward boundary of the unit have been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
FL-86P: CALADESI/HONEYMOON ISLANDS UNIT. A portion of the northern boundary of the unit has been moved northward to include more of the sand sharing system associated with Honeymoon Island. A portion of the southern boundary that is coincident with Unit P24A has been modified to account for accretion and to include the associated aquatic habitat at the northern tip of Clearwater Beach Island.
FL-89: PENINSULA POINT UNIT. The landward boundary and the western lateral boundary of the unit have been moved further north and west to account for accretion at the western tip of Peninsula Point. The southern lateral boundary of the unit has been extended offshore to clarify the extent of the unit.
FL-94: DEER LAKE COMPLEX. The westernmost portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes in the wetlands along the shoreline of an unnamed pond. The boundary following the eastern shoreline of Deer Lake and the boundary along the central segment of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
FL-96: DRAPER LAKE UNIT. A portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes in the shoreline of Draper Lake.
FL-97: NAVARRE BEACH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to account for shoreline erosion along the northern side of Santa Rosa Sound.
FL-98P: SANTA ROSA ISLAND UNIT. A portion of the boundary in Pensacola Bay, located northwest of Fort Pickens, has been moved northward to account for accretion at the western tip of Santa Rosa Island.
FL-99: TOM KING UNIT. An approximately 750 foot long portion of the boundary of the unit located along the shoreline of East Bay north of Tom King Bayou has been modified to correct an administrative error in the transcription of the boundary from the prior CBRS map dated October 24, 1990, to the official map dated July 12, 1996, for this unit. The boundary on the official 1996 map was placed approximately 130 feet too far inland, and incorrectly included four homes within the unit. This correction is supported by an assessment of the historical CBRS maps for this area, the draft map of Unit FL-99 included in the Service's
FL-100: TOWN POINT UNIT. The eastern and western lateral boundaries of the unit have been extended offshore to clarify that the shoals north of Town Point in Pensacola Bay are within the unit. No modifications were made to the boundaries of this unit as a result of changes due to natural forces.
FL-101: GARCON POINT UNIT. A portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the wetlands. A portion of the northern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for erosion along the shoreline of East Bay and natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. An offshore boundary has been added in East Bay and the western lateral boundary of the unit has been extended offshore to clarify the extent of the unit.
FL-102: BASIN BAYOU UNIT. A portion of the boundary along Escambia Bay has been modified to account for erosion along the shoreline.
FL-103P: PERDIDO KEY UNIT. A portion of the landward boundary at the eastern end of the unit has been moved northward to account for accretion on the northeastern side of Perdido Key.
P02: TALBOT ISLANDS COMPLEX. The northern portion of the boundary has been modified to account for channel migration along Sawpit Creek and Gunnison Cut. The southern portion of the boundary has been modified to account for channel migration along Haulover Creek and to follow the shoreline along Batten Island. The west central portion of the coincident boundary between Units P02 and P02P has been modified to account for channel migration along Myrtle Creek.
P02P: TALBOT ISLANDS COMPLEX. The west central portion of the coincident boundary between Units P02 and P02P has been modified to account for channel migration along Myrtle Creek.
P04A: USINA BEACH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The northern portion of the boundary has been modified to account for channel migration along Robinson Creek. The name of this unit has been changed from “Usinas Beach” to “Usina Beach” to correct a spelling error.
P05: CONCH ISLAND UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit and a portion of the coincident boundary between Units P05 and P05P have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
P05P: CONCH ISLAND UNIT. A portion of the coincident boundary between Units P05 and P05P has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
P05A: MATANZAS RIVER UNIT. A portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The western portion of the excluded area boundary along Rattlesnake Island has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of a portion of shoreline along the Intracoastal Waterway.
P07: ORMOND-BY-THE-SEA UNIT. A portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
P08: PONCE INLET UNIT. The southeastern portion of the boundary has been modified to include the sand sharing system as visible on the new CBRS base map. A portion of the western boundary has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along Leon Cut. The northwestern portion of the boundary has been modified to follow the center of the Spruce Creek channel.
P09A: COCONUT POINT UNIT. The eastern portions of the two excluded areas
P10A: BLUE HOLE UNIT. The southwestern portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of an unnamed channel. The western portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The eastern and western excluded area boundaries have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of the Atlantic Ocean and Blue Hole Creek.
P11: HUTCHINSON ISLAND UNIT. The eastern boundaries of the two excluded areas have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of the Atlantic Ocean. The landward boundary of the unit and western boundary of the northern excluded area have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of Indian River.
P12P: HOBE SOUND UNIT. A portion of the northwestern boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of Great Pocket. A portion of the southwestern boundary has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of Peck Lake. A portion of the southwestern boundary has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface west of Peck Lake.
P15: CAPE ROMANO UNIT. The southern boundary and portions of the northern boundary of the unit have been modified to include more of the sand sharing system.
P16: KEEWAYDIN ISLAND UNIT. A portion of the southeastern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for natural changes in the configuration of an unnamed channel north of the Isles of Capri. A portion of the southwestern boundary has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline and associated aquatic habitat along the northwestern portion of Marco Island known as Sand Dollar Island. The lateral boundaries have been extended offshore to clarify the extent of the unit.
P17: LOVERS KEY COMPLEX. Portions of the landward boundary of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The boundary coincident with Unit P17P has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline. The southwestern lateral boundary has been modified to account for erosion of the sand spit along Big Hickory Pass.
P17A: BOWDITCH POINT UNIT. The name of this unit has been changed from “Bodwitch Point” to “Bowditch Point” to correctly identify the underlying barrier feature. No modifications were made to the boundaries of this unit as a result of changes due to natural forces.
P17P: LOVERS KEY COMPLEX. The boundary of the unit that is coincident with Unit P17 has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline.
P18: SANIBEL ISLAND COMPLEX. The southern boundary of the unit has been extended southwestward to account for accretion which resulted in connecting the sand sharing system of an emerging island to Albright Key.
P18P: SANIBEL ISLAND COMPLEX. There are seven discrete segments of Unit P18P, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in one segment that is located just south of Captiva Island and Unit P18 along the Gulf of Mexico shoreline of Sanibel Island. A portion of the landward boundary of this segment has been modified to reflect natural changes that occurred in the configuration of an unnamed channel between Silver Key and Bowmans Beach County Park.
P19: NORTH CAPTIVA ISLAND UNIT. Portions of the boundaries that are coincident with Unit P19P have been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along North Captiva Island. The northern boundary that is coincident with Unit P20 has been moved northward to account for shoreline erosion at the southern tip of Cayo Costa.
P19P: NORTH CAPTIVA ISLAND UNIT. There are 16 discrete segments of Unit P19P that are all coincident with Unit P19. Portions of two discrete segments were combined and modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along North Captiva Island.
P20: CAYO COSTA UNIT. A portion of the eastern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for natural changes that occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along Useppa Island. The northern boundary has been moved northward to account for migration of the sand sharing system north of Cayo Costa. A portion of the boundary that is coincident with Unit P20P has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred along the shoreline of Cayo Costa.
P20P: CAYO COSTA UNIT. There are 13 discrete segments of Unit P20P, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in three of the western segments. The three western segments are coincident with Unit P20, and the modifications were made to account for natural changes that have occurred along the eastern shoreline of Cayo Costa. The southwesternmost boundary that is coincident with Unit P19 has been moved northward to account for shoreline erosion at the southern tip of Cayo Costa.
P21: BOCILLA ISLAND UNIT. There are three discrete segments of Unit P21, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in the northern segment. The landward boundary has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred along the shoreline of Lemon Bay.
P21A: MANASOTA KEY UNIT. There are three discrete segments of Unit P21A, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in the southern segment. The boundary of the southern segment of the unit has been modified to account for accretion that has occurred along the eastern shoreline of Manasota Key.
P21AP: MANASOTA KEY UNIT. A lateral boundary of the southern segment of the unit has been extended offshore to clarify the extent of the unit. No modifications were made to the boundaries of this unit as a result of changes due to natural forces.
P22: CASEY KEY UNIT. Portions of the landward boundary of the unit have been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along Sarasota Keys.
P23: LONGBOAT KEY UNIT. A portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface along Tidy Island.
P24: THE REEFS UNIT. Portions of the boundary of the unit located north and east of Shell Key Shoal have been modified to account for accretion and to include more of the sand sharing system. A portion of the boundary that is coincident with Unit P24P has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along Mullet Key.
P24P: THE REEFS UNIT. A portion of the boundary of the southern segment of the unit, which is coincident with Unit P24, has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along Mullet Key.
P24A: MANDALAY POINT UNIT. A portion of the boundary that is coincident with Unit FL-86P has been modified to account for accretion and to include the associated aquatic habitat at the northern tip of Clearwater Beach Island.
P25: CEDAR KEYS UNIT. The coincident boundary between Units P25 and P25P has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along Candy Island, Hog Island North Key, Seahorse Key, Snake Key, and the eastern end of Buck Island. The coincident boundary between Units P25 and P25P has also been modified to reflect natural changes along Dennis Creek and the wetlands on the western shore of an unnamed peninsula. A portion of the southern boundary of the excluded area along Daughtry Bayou has been modified to account for natural changes in the configuration of the shoreline.
P25P: CEDAR KEYS UNIT. The coincident boundary between Units P25 and P25P has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along Candy Island, Hog Island North Key, Seahorse Key, Snake Key, and the eastern end of Buck Island. The coincident boundary between Units P25 and P25P has also been modified to reflect natural changes along Dennis Creek and the wetlands on the western shore of an unnamed peninsula.
P27A: OCHLOCKONEE COMPLEX. A portion of the boundary on St. James Island has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. A portion of the
P28: DOG ISLAND UNIT. The northwestern boundary of the unit has been extended to clarify that Unit P28 is contiguous with Unit FL-90P to the southwest. No modifications were made to the boundaries of this unit as a result of changes due to natural forces.
P30: CAPE SAN BLAS UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to account for erosion and other natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline along the eastern side of St. Joseph Bay. The coincident boundary between Units P30 and P30P along the Gulf of Mexico has been modified to account for both erosion and accretion along the shoreline of St. Joseph Peninsula. Portions of the coincident boundary between Units P30 and P30P along the western side of St. Joseph Bay have been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline. The northern lateral boundary of the unit has been extended offshore to clarify the extent of the unit.
P30P: CAPE SAN BLAS UNIT. The coincident boundary between Units P30 and P30P along the Gulf of Mexico has been modified to account for both erosion and accretion along the shoreline of St. Joseph Peninsula. Portions of the coincident boundary between Units P30 and P30P along the western side of St. Joseph Bay have been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline.
P31: ST. ANDREW COMPLEX. Portions of the landward boundary of the unit located northwest of Wild Goose Lagoon, northeast of St. Andrew Sound, along Hog Island Sound, and along St. Andrew Bay, have been modified to account for natural changes along the shoreline and in the wetlands. The coincident boundary between Units P31 and P31P along the shoreline of Shell Island has been modified to account for accretion on the northern side of the island.
P31P: ST. ANDREW COMPLEX. The coincident boundary between Units P31 and P31P along the shoreline of Shell Island has been modified to account for accretion on the northern side of the island. The boundary along the shoreline of Grand Lagoon has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
P32: MORENO POINT UNIT. The southern boundaries of the excluded areas have been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline.
The Service's review found 12 of the 13 CBRS units in Georgia to have changed due to natural forces.
GA-02P: OSSABAW ISLAND UNIT. The northwestern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for channel migration along Skipper Narrows. Portions of the landward boundary of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
GA-03P: ST. CATHERINE ISLAND UNIT. The western boundary of the unit has been modified to account for channel migration along the Intracoastal Waterway.
GA-04P: BLACKBEARD/SAPELO ISLANDS UNIT. Portions of the landward boundary of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The northern boundary has been modified to account for channel migration along Sapelo River. The southwestern boundary has been modified to account for channel migration along Hudson Creek, Doboy Sound, North River, and Rockdedundy River.
GA-05P: ALTAMAHA/WOLF ISLANDS UNIT. The northwestern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for channel migration along Darien River. The southwestern boundary has been modified to account for channel migration along South Altamaha River. The southern boundary coincident with Unit N03 has been modified to account for channel migration along Buttermilk Sound.
N01: LITTLE TYBEE ISLAND UNIT. The northeastern and lateral boundaries have been modified to add portions of the sand sharing system at the mouth of Tybee Creek. The northern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for channel migration along Bull River, Lazaretto Creek, and Tybee Creek. The southwestern boundary has been modified to account for channel migration along Wilmington River. The landward portion of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
N01A: WASSAW ISLAND UNIT. The western boundary of the unit has been modified to account for channel migration along an unnamed channel.
N01AP: WASSAW ISLAND UNIT. The western boundary of the unit has been modified to account for channel migration along Romerly Marsh Creek, Habersham Creek, and Adams Creek.
N03: LITTLE ST. SIMONS ISLAND UNIT. The northern boundary coincident with Unit GA-05P has been modified to account for channel migration along Buttermilk Sound. The southern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for channel migration along Village Creek and Hampton River. Portions of the landward boundary of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
N04: SEA ISLAND UNIT. The northern and landward boundaries of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The southwestern boundary has been modified to account for channel migration along an unnamed channel. A portion of the southern boundary has been modified to extend further west to account for migration of the sand sharing system at Goulds Inlet.
N05: LITTLE CUMBERLAND ISLAND UNIT. The northern lateral boundary of the unit has been moved north to account for shoal migration north of Little Cumberland Island. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The southern boundary coincident with Unit N06 has been modified to account for channel migration along Floyd Creek. The southeastern boundary coincident with Unit N06P has been modified to account for the accretion of the barrier spit at Long Point.
N06: CUMBERLAND ISLAND UNIT. There are five discrete segments of Unit N06, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in two of the segments. The northern boundary of the northern segment, coincident with Unit N05, has been modified to account for channel migration along Floyd Creek. The landward boundary of the northern segment has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The eastern boundary of the northern segment coincident with Unit N06P has been modified to account for channel migration along Brickhill River. The southeastern portion of the southern segment coincident with Unit N06P has been modified to account for channel migration along Beach Creek.
N06P: CUMBERLAND ISLAND UNIT. There are six discrete segments of Unit N06P, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in three of the segments. In the northernmost segment, the northern boundary coincident with Unit N06 has been modified to account for the accretion of the barrier spit at Long Point. The western boundary of this segment that is coincident with Unit N06 has been modified to account for channel migration along Brickhill River. The boundary of the northwestern segment of Unit N06P, coincident with Unit N06, has been modified to account for channel migration along Brickhill River. The southwestern portion of the southern segment coincident with Unit N06 has been modified to account for channel migration along Beach Creek.
The Service's review found five of the seven CBRS units in Louisiana that are included in this review (Units LA-01, LA-02, S03, S04, S05, S06, and S07) to have changed due to natural forces.
The remaining Louisiana CBRS units not included in this review (Units LA-03P, LA-04P, LA-05P, LA-07, LA-08P, LA-09, LA-10, S01, S01A, S02, S08, S09, S10, and S11) are anticipated to have draft revised maps completed through the digital conversion effort available for stakeholder review and comment in 2016.
S03: CAMINADA UNIT. The eastern boundary of the unit north of Cheniere Caminada has been modified to account for channel migration. The eastern boundary of the southwestern excluded area has been modified to account for natural changes along the shoreline of an unnamed channel.
S04: TIMBALIER BAY UNIT. The eastern boundary of the unit has been modified to
S05: TIMBALIER ISLANDS UNIT. The northern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for the migration of Timbalier Island and East Timbalier Island and to include associated shoals within the unit. The western boundary has also been moved westward to account for the migration of Timbalier Island.
S06: ISLES DERNIERES UNIT. The northeastern boundary has been modified to account for the migration of the Isles Dernieres. The northern boundary has been modified and generalized to account for wetlands erosion along Grand Pass des Ilettes. The western boundary has been moved northwestward to account for the migration of the Isles Dernieres. The eastern boundary of the unit has been extended offshore to clarify the extent of the unit.
S07: POINT AU FER UNIT. The eastern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for channel migration along Buckskin Bayou. The northern boundary has been modified to account for channel migration along Blue Hammock Bayou. A segment of the western boundary has been modified to account for wetlands erosion on the western side of Point Au Fer Island. A segment of the western boundary has been modified to include North Point due to accretion connecting North Point to Point Au Fer. Due to the significant rate of erosion in this area, some of the boundaries have been generalized. The eastern and western boundaries have been extended offshore to clarify the extent of the unit. Additionally, the northern boundary of the unit has been adjusted near the location where Four League Bay joins Atchafalaya Bay to close a gap in the boundary on the official map dated October 24, 1990, for this unit.
The Service's review found 16 of the 46 CBRS units in Michigan to have changed due to natural forces.
MI-02: TOLEDO BEACH UNIT. The western lateral boundary has been moved westward to account for the accretion of a barrier spit within the unit.
MI-04: STURGEON BAR UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline and the wetland/fastland interface.
MI-05: HURON CITY UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of Lake Huron and Willow Creek.
MI-08: CHARITY ISLAND UNIT. The western boundary of the unit has been moved westward to account for accreting sand and submerged shoals on the western side of Charity Island.
MI-13: SQUAW BAY UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The northern lateral boundary has been moved northward and the southern lateral boundary has been moved southward to account for accreting sand and submerged shoals around Sulphur Island.
MI-14: WHITEFISH BAY UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
MI-17: SWAN LAKE UNIT. The western and southeastern boundaries of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The eastern boundary has been modified to account for natural changes in the configuration of the shoreline of Swan Lake and to the channel between Swan Lake and Lake Huron.
MI-21: ARCADIA LAKE UNIT. The boundary along the eastern shoreline of the excluded area has been modified slightly to better follow the shoreline as depicted on the new CBRS base map.
MI-22: SADONY BAYOU UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
MI-29: SEUL CHOIX UNIT. The northeastern boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of an unnamed channel.
MI-33: MILLECOQUINS POINT UNIT. The boundary of the unit along the southern side of the excluded area has been modified slightly to better follow the shoreline as depicted on the new CBRS base map.
MI-40: GREEN ISLAND UNIT. The eastern landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect the current configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The western landward boundary has been modified to account for accretion along the shoreline. The eastern lateral boundary has been moved eastward and the western lateral boundary has been moved westward to account for accreting sand and submerged shoals within the unit.
MI-44: ALBANY ISLAND UNIT. The western portion of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
MI-49: SHELLDRAKE UNIT. A portion of the northern boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of Betsy River.
MI-53: VERMILION UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface and the configuration of the shoreline of Twomile Lake.
MI-62: SAUX HEAD UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of Saux Head Lake.
The Service's review found that the boundaries of Unit MN-01 (the only CBRS unit in Minnesota) do not need to be modified due to changes from natural forces.
The Service's review found four of the seven CBRS units in Mississippi to have changed due to natural forces. Additionally, the Service's review found that one of these units, R01A, contained administrative errors that were made by the Service in 1990.
MS-01P: GULF ISLANDS UNIT. The gap between the two discrete segments of the unit, located near the western tip of Petit Bois Island, has been moved to the west due to the migration of Petit Bois Island towards Horn Island Pass Channel.
MS-02: MARSH POINT UNIT. Portions of the landward boundary of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
MS-04: HERON BAY POINT UNIT. Three segments of offshore boundary have been added to the eastern, western, and southern portions of the unit to clarify the extent of the unit. The southern boundary of the unit is coincident with the northern boundary of Unit LA-02 in Louisiana. No modifications were made to the boundaries of this unit as a result of changes due to natural forces.
R01A: BELLE FONTAINE POINT UNIT. The western boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes in the wetlands along Graveline Bay. Additionally, three areas of the unit have been modified to correct administrative errors in the transcription of the boundary from the draft map that was included in the Service's
R02: DEER ISLAND UNIT. The official October 24, 1990, map of this unit does not include a complete depiction of the western end of Deer Island due to the limitations of the base map that was used at the time. The western portion of the boundary of the unit goes up to edge of the U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Quadrangle that it was printed
R03: CAT ISLAND UNIT. The western segment of the unit has been modified to account for erosion of the wetlands on the western side of Cat Island. The eastern segment of the unit, consisting of Middle Spit, South Spit, and associated shoals, has been modified to account for erosion of the wetlands, and erosion and migration of the spit. Due to the rapid rate of erosion in this area, some of the boundaries have been generalized.
The Service's review found 15 of the 21 CBRS units in the Great Lakes region of New York (the only CBRS units in New York that were part of this review) to have changed due to natural forces. Unit NY-60P was remapped and referenced in notices the Service published in the
NY-62: GRENADIER ISLAND UNIT. The eastern lateral boundary of the unit has been modified to account for the accretion of a sand spit within the unit.
NY-64: THE ISTHMUS UNIT. A portion of the boundary of the unit along Chaumont Bay has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
NY-65: POINT PENINSULA UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
NY-66: HOUNSFIELD UNIT. Two segments of offshore boundary have been added to clarify the extent of the unit. No modifications were made to the boundaries of this unit as a result of changes due to natural forces.
NY-67: DUTCH JOHN BAY UNIT. Portions of the boundary along the shoreline of Stony Island have been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline.
NY-68: SHERWIN BAY UNIT. Portions of the boundary located inland of Shore Road have been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline of Sherwin Bay.
NY-69: ASSOCIATION ISLAND UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to account for erosion along the shoreline of Association Island.
NY-72: NORTH POND UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface and to account for shoreline erosion around North Pond.
NY-73: DEER CREEK MARSH UNIT. The boundary of the unit around the southern half of Deer Creek Marsh has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
NY-74: GRINDSTONE CREEK UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to follow the wetland/fastland interface along portions of the boundary that previously followed the shoreline of a pond which no longer exists as depicted on the base map of the October 15, 1992 official CBRS map. A portion of the northern lateral boundary has been moved northward to reflect the current position of the outlet of Grindstone Creek.
NY-75: BUTTERFLY SWAMP UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface around Butterfly Swamp.
NY-76: WALKER UNIT. The landward and southern lateral boundaries of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
NY-77: SNAKE SWAMP UNIT. A portion of the eastern boundary of the unit located north of Lakeshore Road has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
NY-79: BLIND SODUS BAY UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the shoreline and wetland/fastland interface. The western lateral boundary of the unit has been moved southwest to account for erosion along the shoreline of Lake Ontario.
NY-84: MAXWELL BAY UNIT. The boundary of the unit has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
NY-87: BIG SISTER CREEK UNIT. A portion of the landward boundary on the northern side of the unit formerly followed the shoreline of an unnamed channel that has since migrated southward. This portion of the boundary has been modified to follow the wooded vegetation line east of the beach.
The Service's review found 6 of the 10 CBRS units in Ohio to have changed due to natural forces.
OH-02: MENTOR UNIT. There are two segments of Unit OH-02, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in the western segment. Portions of the boundary around Mentor Marsh have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
OH-03: NORTH POND UNIT. The western end of the landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface. The eastern and western lateral boundaries of the unit have been modified to account for erosion along the shoreline of Lake Erie.
OH-04: OLD WOMAN CREEK. The southern portion of the boundary of the unit located north of Ohio State Route 2 has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the shoreline along Old Woman Creek.
OH-06: BAY POINT UNIT. The southwestern boundary of the unit has been moved farther southeast to account for the accretion of Bay Point.
OH-09: FOX MARSH UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
OH-10: TOUSSAINT RIVER UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
The Service's review found six of the seven CBRS units in Wisconsin to have changed due to natural forces.
WI-02: POINT AU SABLE UNIT. The southern lateral boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface near the inlet of an unnamed channel to Green Bay.
WI-03: PESHTIGO POINT UNIT. There are two segments of Unit WI-03, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in the western segment. The southern boundary of the western segment of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes in the wetlands.
WI-04: DYERS SLOUGH UNIT. The eastern boundary of the unit has been modified to account for natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the eastern shoreline of the Peshtigo River.
WI-05: BARK BAY UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
WI-06: HERBSTER UNIT. The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
WI-07: FLAG RIVER UNIT. There are two segments of Unit WI-07, but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in the eastern segment. Portions of the landward boundary of the unit have been modified to reflect natural changes that have occurred in the configuration of the wetland/fastland interface.
The CBRA requires consultation with the appropriate Federal, State, and local officials on the proposed CBRS boundary modifications to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location of any CBRS unit as a result of natural forces (16 U.S.C. 3503(c)). We
Federal, State, and local officials may submit written comments and accompanying data to the individual and location identified in the
The draft maps and digital boundary data can be accessed and downloaded from the Service's Web site:
Interested parties may also contact the Service individual identified 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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments; correction.
On April 2, 2015, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), published a notice in the
Susan Jacobsen, 505-248-6641. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
In the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, on December 17, 2015.
Protests of the survey must be filed before December 17, 2015 to be considered.
Protests of the survey should be sent to the Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669.
Marvin Montoya, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5124 or (406) 896-5003,
This survey was executed at the request of the Field Manager, Central Montana District Office, Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument (UMRBNM), Bureau of Land Management, Lewistown, Montana, and was
The lands we surveyed are:
This survey was executed at the request of the Field Manager, Dillon Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Dillon, Montana, and was necessary to determine boundaries of Federal lands.
The lands we surveyed are:
This survey was executed at the request of the Field Manager, Malta Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Malta, Montana, and was necessary to determine boundaries of Federal lands.
The lands we surveyed are:
The lands we surveyed are:
This survey was executed at the request of the Field Manager, Malta Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Malta, Montana, and was necessary to determine boundaries of Federal lands.
We will place a copy of the plats, in six sheets, and related field notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on these plats, in six sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file these plats, in six sheets, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written notice with the Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Oregon State Director within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, on December 17, 2015.
Protests of the survey must be filed before December 17, 2015 to be considered.
Protests of the survey should be sent to the Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669.
Marvin Montoya, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5124 or (406) 896-5003,
This survey was executed at the request of the Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals, Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, and was necessary to determine Federal Leasable Mineral Lands.
The lands we surveyed are:
We will place a copy of the plat, in twelve sheets, and related field notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on this plat, in two sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file this plat, in twelve sheets, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Neville Public Museum of Brown County has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Neville Public Museum of Brown County. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Neville Public Museum of Brown County at the address in this notice by December 17, 2015.
Louise Pfotenhauer, Neville Public Museum of Brown County, 210 Museum Place, Green Bay, WI 54303, telephone (920) 448-7845, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Neville Public Museum of Brown County, Green Bay, WI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from an unknown location in South Dakota.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Neville Public Museum of Brown County professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Prior to 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were acquired by James Dobry Sr. from an unknown area of South Dakota, as part of a 36” long necklace identified by him as being “authentic Sioux with claws, beads, and teeth.” In 1970, the human remains were donated to the Neville Public Museum of Brown County. No known individuals were identified. The 94 associated funerary objects which are all part of the necklace include 43 raptor claws and mammal canines, 20 glass and clay beads, 29 shells, and two non-human phalanges. Trade beads indicate this is an historic period necklace.
Officials of the Neville Public Museum of Brown County have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 1 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 94 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Louise Pfotenhauer, Neville Public Museum of Brown County, 210 Museum Place, Green Bay, WI 54303, telephone (920) 448-7845, email
The Neville Public Museum of Brown County is responsible for notifying the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Neville Public Museum of Brown County has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Neville Public Museum of Brown County. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Neville Public Museum of Brown County at the address in this notice by December 17, 2015.
Louise Pfotenhauer, Neville Public Museum of Brown County, 210 Museum Place, Green Bay, WI 54303, telephone (920) 448-7845, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Neville Public Museum of Brown County, Green Bay, WI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Portage Point, Door County, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Neville Public Museum of Brown County professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin.
In 1930, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Portage Point in Door County, WI. A partial skeleton of 35-50 year-old male was discovered and excavated by P. M. Platten and P. Krippner. The human remains were brought to Neville Public Museum of Brown County after excavation. No known individuals were identified. The approximately 33 associated funerary objects are pot sherds.
Potsherds accompanying burial and lack of trade goods suggest a late pre-contact date for the burial. Based on Ho-Chunk's Early Historic Period homeland, the human remains and associated funerary objects are culturally affiliated with the Ho-Chunk people.
Officials of the Neville Public Museum of Brown County have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 1 individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 33 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Louise Pfotenhauer, Neville Public Museum of Brown County, 210 Museum Place, Green Bay, WI 54303, telephone (920) 448-7845, email
The Neville Public Museum of Brown County is responsible for notifying the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Dallas Museum of Art, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Dallas Museum of Art. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Dallas Museum of Art at the address in this notice by December 17, 2015.
Carol Griffin, Registrar, Dallas Museum of Art, 1717 North Harwood Street, Dallas, TX 75201, telephone (214) 922-1327, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, TX, that meet the definition of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In 1988, 27 masks and mask parts and two wrist guards were acquired by the Dallas Museum of Art in Dallas, TX, through a local gallery in Dallas, TX. According to the gallery's owner, the masks, mask parts, and wrist guards were bought from a private Arizona collector who had purchased them from the son of a former head of the Hopi Badger Clan. These items were reported in the summaries in 1993 through compliance with NAGPRA. Following the summary, the number of parts associated with this accession was variously corrected and updated through identification and pairing. According to museum records, the mask, mask parts, and wrist guards have never been placed on exhibit; they have remained in storage since acquisition.
In 2009, the Dallas Museum of Art accepted by donation two dance wands, which had been on loan to the museum since 1984 by a Dallas collector. The dance wands had been on exhibit at the time of consultation in 1993 by representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona. They were promptly placed in storage following the visit.
The 31 sacred objects hereby submitted in this notice for intent to repatriate include: 2 woman's society dance wands (a pair); 1 case mask of Kokopelli, hump-backed flute player; 1 case mask of the Laguna corn dancer; 1 half-mask; 23 accessories for case masks, 1 pair of wrist guards; and 2 dance caps.
In 1993, the Hopi Tribe of Arizona came to the museum to review the collection, identifying the respective masks parts. The Dallas Museum of Art was in correspondence with the Hopi Tribe of Arizona in 1997 and 1998 regarding the potential for treatment of the organic materials, for which the museum had no record of treatment for objects within the 1988 acquisition. The Dallas Museum of Art and Hopi Tribe of Arizona renewed correspondence about the masks and mask parts in 2014, which included at that time additional information regarding the dance wands. A request for repatriation of these 31 items was submitted by the Hopi Tribe of Arizona on December 23, 2014. The Dallas Museum of Art formally recognized the claim on March 19, 2015 with Board of Trustees approval.
Officials of the Dallas Museum of Art have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the 31 cultural items described above are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the 31 cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred objects and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to: Carol Griffin, Registrar, Dallas Museum of Art, 1717 North Harwood Street, Dallas, Texas 75201, telephone (214) 922-1327, email
The Dallas Museum of Art is responsible for notifying the Hopi Tribe of Arizona that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Carnegie Museum of Natural History, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to
Deborah G Harding, Collection Manager, Section of Anthropology, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 5800 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA 15206, telephone (412) 665-2608, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, PA that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Between 1957 and 1960, human remains representing at minimum, 58 individuals were removed from the Chambers site (36LR11) in Lawrence County, PA. John A. Zakucia, a private individual, excavated from 1957 to 1959, with permission from the landowners. He donated human remains and associated funerary objects to CMNH in June, 1959. In 1959-1960, CMNH personnel assisted Zakucia in his excavations. During these excavations, 2530 additional, unaffiliated cultural items were removed from the Chambers Site (36LR11) in Lawrence County, PA. The 2,531 unassociated funerary objects, are 1953 flint fragments; 373 scrapers and knives; 40 points and fragments; 4 choppers; 6 hammerstones; 1 steatite fragment; 10 burins and gravers; 11 native pottery fragments; 7 hematite fragments; 16 animal bone fragments; 6 pitted stones; 11 charcoal fragments; 1 net weight; 38 natural stones and fragments; 3 drills; 6 historic pottery fragments; 20 iron and nail fragments; 2 glass fragments; 2 mortar fragments; 4 polished stones; 1 gorget and 3 fragments; 1 Micmac-style pipe; 1 coal fragment; 1 copper fragment; 2 fire-cracked rocks; 1 piece of wood with bone; 1 charred corn cob; l Lincoln penny; and 5 radio-carbon samples.
Officials of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History have determined that
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 2530 cultural items described above are not believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, not to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual. However, since these objects were excavated from above and below a historic cemetery associated with an historic Delaware village, and since the Delaware consider them by proximity to be part of the burials from that cemetery, they become
• Because of the point above, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and Delaware Tribe of Indians.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Deborah G Harding, Collection Manager, Section of Anthropology, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 5800 Baum Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15206, telephone (412-665-2608) email
The Carnegie Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying the Delaware Tribe of Indians that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Shiloh Museum of Ozark History has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History at the address in this notice by December 17, 2015.
Carolyn Reno, Shiloh Museum of Ozark History 118 W. Johnson Avenue, Springdale, AR 72764, telephone (479) 750-8165, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History, Springdale, AR. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Beaver Lake, Washington County, AR (Shiloh Site 3WA128).
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History professional staff in consultation with
In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Shiloh Site 3WA128 Burial 2 in Washington County, AR, by the Northwest Arkansas Archaeological Society (N.W.A.A.S.) and donated to Shiloh Museum. The N.W.A.A.S. donation is the complete human remains of a child about eight years of age. The human remains date from between 500 B.C. to A.D. 1500. There is no lineal descendent or culturally affiliated contemporary Indian tribe that can be determined. No known individuals were identified. The 20 associated funerary objects include four blades, six blade fragments, eight projectile points, one projectile point fragment, and one punch.
Officials of the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on determination of age of remains (500 B.C.-A.D.1500), burial site in a bluff shelter, and associated burial material.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 20 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Carolyn Reno, Shiloh Museum of Ozark History, 118 W. Johnson Avenue, Springdale, AR 72764, telephone (479) 750-8165, email
The Shiloh Museum of Ozark History is responsible for notifying The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Neville Public Museum of Brown County has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Neville Public Museum of Brown County. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Neville Public Museum of Brown County at the address in this notice by December 17, 2015.
Louise Pfotenhauer, Neville Public Museum of Brown County, 210 Museum Place, Green Bay, WI 54303, telephone (920) 448-7845,email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Neville Public Museum of Brown County, Green Bay, WI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Door County and Kewaunee County, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Neville Public Museum of Brown County professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.
In 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Rowleys Bay in Door County, WI. A partial skeleton of a 35-50 year-old person of indeterminate gender was discovered by landowner and excavated by a crew from Neville Public Museum of Brown County, under direction of Ron Mason. The human remains were brought to Neville Public Museum of Brown County after excavation. No known individuals were identified. The three associated funerary objects are 1 copper point, 1 antler flaker, and 1 vial with bone fragments and red ocher.
Associated copper point and red ocher suggest a Late Archaic date of burial. The Menominee and Ho-Chunk people are associated with long-term, pre-contact residence in northeast Wisconsin.
In 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Porte de Morts Site in Door County, WI. A partial skeleton of one adult of indeterminate gender was excavated by a crew from Neville Public Museum of Brown County, under direction of Ron J. Mason and Carol I.
The burial was made by people of the North Bay (pre-contact Middle Woodland Period) culture. The Menominee and Ho-Chunk people are two tribes whose origins lie in eastern Wisconsin, although their connection to the North Bay culture is not directly established by archeological evidence.
Between 1900 and 1930, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the DeBaker Farm, Red River, Kewaunee County, WI. A partial skeleton of one adult, possibly female, was discovered by John P. Schumacher. The human remains were among sherds donated to the Neville Public Museum of Brown County by John P. Schumacher in 1935. No known individuals were identified. The 38 associated funerary objects are pottery sherds.
Recognizable pottery types include North Bay (Middle Woodland Period), Point Sauble collared and Madison folded lip (both Late Woodland types) and undecorated Oneota sherds from the late prehistoric period. One sherd may be historic.
This location was ceded to the U.S. Government by the Menominee people but is near Red Banks, a place of ancestral origin of some Ho-Chunk clans. Accompanying sherds indicate a pre-contact burial date is likely, but not conclusive.
Officials of the Neville Public Museum of Brown County have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 3 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 41 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Louise Pfotenhauer, Neville Public Museum of Brown County, 210 Museum Place, Green Bay, WI 54303, telephone (920) 448-7845, email
The Neville Public Museum of Brown County is responsible for notifying the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Hudson Museum has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Hudson Museum, University of Maine. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Hudson Museum, University of Maine at the address in this notice by December 17, 2015.
Gretchen Faulkner, Hudson Museum, University of Maine, 5746 Collins Center for the Arts, Orono, ME 04469-5746, telephone (207) 581-1904, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Hudson Museum, University of Maine, Orono, ME. The human remains were removed from Safety Harbor and Weeden Island, Pinellas County, FL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Hudson Museum and University of Maine professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and the Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)).
In 1928, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Weeden Island in Pinellas County, FL. They were excavated by Dr. Clarence Edmonds Hemingway (Ernest Hemingway's father) and were part of the Portland Society of Natural History Collection, which were transferred to the Hudson Museum in 1970. The human remains represent one male, age 25-40, and one female, age 30-60. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains were examined by Marcella H. Sorg, Ph.D., D-ABFA, Forensic Anthropologist in July 2002, and she concluded that they were of Native American ancestry. Museum records and collection documentation identified these human remains as “Calusa tribe Fla.” Consultation identified both the Miccosukee Tribe of
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Safety Harbor, Pinellas, FL. These human remains were transferred by the Portland Society of Natural History. The human remains represent one male, age 18-50. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains were examined by Marcella H. Sorg, Ph.D., D-ABFA, Forensic Anthropologist in July 2002, and she concluded that they were of Native American ancestry. Museum records and collection documentation identified these human remains as “Timucua Tribe Fla.” Consultation identified both the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and the Seminole Tribe of Florida as the present-day Indian tribes with a shared group identity to these human remains.
Officials of the Hudson Museum, University of Maine have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and the Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Gretchen Faulkner, Hudson Museum, University of Maine, 5746 Collins Center for the Arts, Orono, ME 04469-5746, telephone (207) 581-1904, email
The Hudson Museum, University of Maine is responsible for notifying the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and the Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)).
National Park Service, Interior.
Notification of Boundary Revision.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to appropriate authorities, the boundary of Acadia National Park in the State of Maine is modified to include approximately 1,441 acres of adjacent land. Following this boundary revision, the property will be donated to the United States and managed as a part of the park.
The effective date of this boundary revision is November 17, 2015.
The map depicting this boundary revision is available for inspection at the following locations: National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Northeast Region, New England Office, 115 John Street, 5th Floor, Lowell, MA 01852, and National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Deputy Realty Officer, Rachel McManus, National Park Service, Land Resources Program, Northeast Region, 115 John Street, 5th Floor, Lowell, MA 01852, telephone 978-970-5260.
The House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Resources have been notified of this boundary revision. The boundary revision is depicted on Map No. 123/129102 and dated July 10, 2015. This boundary revision and subsequent donation will contribute to, and is necessary for, the proper preservation, protection and interpretation of the important ecological, scenic, cultural, recreational, and shorefront resources of Acadia National Park and the scenic Schoodic Peninsula.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of Anthropology at Indiana University has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Indiana University NAGPRA Office. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Indiana University NAGPRA Office at the address in this notice by December 17, 2015.
Dr. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, NAGPRA Office, Student Building 318, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, telephone (812) 856-5315, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Indiana University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 12 individuals from the Starved Rock site in La Salle County, IL, were donated to the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University. No known individuals were identified. There is one associated funerary object which is a bone bead. Notes indicate that these remains may have been excavated in the 1940s.
Starved Rock is a prominent landmark located on the southern bank of the upper Illinois River, with human habitation dating back over 8,000 years. This area is known to have been inhabited by tribes belonging to the Illinois Confederacy. Historical accounts report that Starved Rock was selected by La Salle as the site of Fort St. Louis during the late 17th century. It was then occupied by the Peoria people during the early 1700s. The human remains from this site have been determined to be likely Peoria, Kaskaskia, or from another tribe of the Illinois Confederacy; the modern day descendants are the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.
In 1956, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual, were donated to the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University from the Cincinnati Society of Natural History. Notes indicate that these remains may have been part of the Chicago Historical Society collections prior to 1950. The human remains are labeled as being from a `Cascaskian' individual. No other information is present. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The `Cascaskia' or `Kaskaskia' were one of the tribes which made up the Illinois Confederacy. The modern descendants are the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.
In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, 17 individuals and 211 associated funerary objects, were donated to the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University from a private citizen. No known individuals were identified. The associated funerary objects include 1 flint chip, 86 glass beads, 103 shell beads, 1 corn cob fragment, 1 raccoon mandible, 1 piece of worked stone, 9 metal fragments, 1 metal cross, 2 metal beads, 3 pieces of preserved fabric, and 3 pieces of wood. Notes indicate that this collection was excavated from Fort Chartres in Randolph County, Illinois. Individuals are listed as being affiliated with the Illiniwek tribe.
When French explorers reached the upper Mississippi Valley during the 17th century, the area was heavily populated by the Illiniwek, also known as the Illinois Confederacy. In 1720, the French constructed a fort known as Fort de Chartres along the Mississippi River in IL. This fort was built near the Illiniwek villages and the French at Fort de Chartres began forming trade relationships with the Illinois tribes. As mentioned above, the modern descendants of the Illiniwek are the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.
Officials of the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 30 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 212 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, NAGPRA Office, Student Building 318, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, telephone (812) 856-5315, email
Indiana University is responsible for notifying the Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Saxon Glass Technologies, Inc. on November 10, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic devices containing strengthened glass and packaging thereof. The complaint names as a respondent Apple Inc. of Cupertino, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, a cease and desist order, and a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3099”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA), as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on November 17, 2015.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA), as an NRTL. TUVRNA's expansion covers the addition of one recognized testing and certification site to their NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
TUVRNA submitted an application, dated January 9, 2015 (OSHA-2007-0042-0013), to expand its recognition to include the addition of one recognized testing and certification sites located at: TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. 1279 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application and other pertinent information. OSHA staff also performed an on-site review of TUVRNA's Pleasanton, CA testing and certification facility on March 17, 2015, and recommended expansion of TUVRNA's recognition to include this one site.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVRNA's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the TUVRNA's application, go to
OSHA staff examined TUVRNA's expansion application, conducted a detailed on-site assessment, and examined other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVRNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant TUVRNA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVRNA's recognition to include the site at TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., 1279 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 as listed above. OSHA's recognition of this site limits TUVRNA to performing product testing and certifications only to the test standards for which the site has the proper capability and programs, and for test standards in TUVRNA's scope of recognition. This limitation is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, TUVRNA also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. TUVRNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. TUVRNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. TUVRNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on TUVRNA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the recognition of TUVRNA, subject to these limitations and conditions specified above.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015, 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.; Wednesday, December 2, 2015, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; Thursday, December 3, 2015, 9:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m., Local Time.
NASA Johnson Space Center, Gilruth Conference Center, Lone Star Room, Room 216, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX 77508.
Ms. Marla King, NAC Administrative Officer, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1148.
This meeting will be open to the public to the meeting capacity of the room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial 1-888-469-1174 or toll number 1-517-308-9069, Passcode: “NAC Meeting” for all three days.
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of Meetings.
The National Endowment for the Humanities will hold six meetings of the Humanities Panel, a federal advisory committee, during December, 2015. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.
See
The meetings will be held at Constitution Center at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. See Supplementary Information for meeting room numbers.
Lisette Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW., Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322;
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:
1.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Historical Geography, for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
2.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Media Studies and Scholarly Communication (Level I), for Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
3.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Archives and Digital Collections II (Level I), for Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
4.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Languages and Linguistics (Level I and Level II), for Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
5.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Public Programs and Education (Level II), for Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
6.
This meeting will discuss applications for Fellowship Programs at Independent Research Institutions, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated July 19, 1993.
The National Science Board, pursuant to National Science Foundation (NSF) regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of A CHANGE IN THE SCHEDULING OF TWO COMMITTEE MEETINGS during the National Science Board meetings on November 18-19, 2015.
The original notice appeared in the
Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP)
Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP)
Updates: Please refer to the National Science Board Web site for additional information. Meeting information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may be found at
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 30, 2015 the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Modification Request Received and Permit Issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities regulated and permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of a requested permit modification and permit issued.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email:
The Foundation issued a permit (ACA 2011-002) to David Ainley on May 28, 2010. The issued permit allows the applicant to band, apply instruments, weigh, collect blood and cloacal swabs, and mark nests of Adelie penguins located at Cape Crozier (ASPA 124), Cape Royds (ASPA 121), Cape Bird, and Beaufort Island (ASPA 105), as well as to enter Cape Hallett (ASPA 106) in November 2014 to check for banded birds.
A recent modification to this permit, dated November 14, 2014, permitted the applicant to deploy temperature loggers in penguin nests to test hypotheses on nest quality.
Now the applicant proposes a permit modification to extend the duration of his permit for another year, so that it expires on August 31, 2016. The Environmental Officer has reviewed the modification request and has determined that the amendment is not a material change to the permit, and it will have a less than a minor or transitory impact.
November 12, 2015 to August 31, 2016.
The permit modification was issued on November 12, 2015.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal by applicant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee), to withdraw its application dated September 4, 2014, for a proposed amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28, for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY). The proposed amendment would have replaced VY's decommissioning trust fund (DTF) license conditions with the NRC's regulations governing decommissioning trust funds.
November 17, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0029 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.
James Kim, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4125; email:
The NRC has granted the request of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee), to withdraw its application dated September 4, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14254A405), for a proposed amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28, for VY, located in Windam County, Vermont. The proposed amendment would have replaced VY's DTF license conditions with the DTF provisions in paragraph 50.75(h) of Title 10 of the
The NRC published a Biweekly Notice in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
November 16, 23, 30, December 7, 14, 21, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 23, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 7, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 21, 2015.
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
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal registration categories and to retire the Limited Representative—Proprietary Trader and Limited Principal—Proprietary Trader registration categories. The Exchange is also amending its rules to establish the Series 57 examination as the appropriate qualification examination for Securities Traders and deleting the rule referring to the S501 continuing education program currently applicable to Proprietary Traders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to replace the Proprietary Trader registration category (the “Proprietary Trader” registration category) and Proprietary Trader qualification examination (Series 56) with the Securities Trader registration category and Securities Trader qualification examination (Series 57) in its registration rules relating to securities trading activity. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to replace the Limited Principal—Proprietary Trader registration category (the “Proprietary Trader Principal” registration category) with the Securities Trader Principal registration category.
This filing is, in all material respects, based upon SR-FINRA-2015-017, which was recently approved by the Commission.
Today, BX Rule 1032(a) requires each person associated with a member who is included within the definition of a
The Exchange is proposing to retire the Proprietary Trader registration category by deleting current Rule 1032(b) and adopting proposed Rule 1032(b) establishing the new Securities Trader registration category. Proposed Rule 1032(b) requires that each person associated with a member who is included within the definition of a representative as defined in Rule 1011 must register with the Exchange as a Securities Trader if, with respect to transactions in equity, preferred or convertible debt securities, or foreign currency options on the Exchange, such person is engaged in proprietary trading, the execution of transactions on an agency basis, or the direct supervision of such activities, other than any person associated with a member whose trading activities are conducted principally on behalf of an investment company that is registered with the Commission pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 and that controls, is controlled by or is under common control, with the member (an “investment company firm”). The proposed language requires applicants to pass an appropriate Qualification Examination for Securities Trader (the Series 57 examination) before registering in the new Securities Trader category. It also provides that a person registered as a Securities Trader shall not be qualified to function in any other registration category, unless he or she is also qualified and registered in such other registration category.
A person registered as a Proprietary Trader in the Central Registration Depository (CRD®) system on the effective date of the proposed rule change will be grandfathered as a Securities Trader without having to take any additional examinations and without having to take any other actions. In addition, individuals who were registered as a Proprietary Trader in the CRD system prior to the effective date of the proposed rule change will be eligible to register as Securities Traders without having to take any additional examinations, provided that no more than two years have passed between the date they were last registered as a representative and the date they register as a Securities Trader.
Persons registered in the new category would be subject to the continuing education requirements of Rule 1120. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1120(a) by removing the option for Series 56 registered persons to participate in the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program in order to satisfy the Regulatory Element. The S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program is being phased out along with the Series 56 Proprietary Trader qualification examination. As a result, effective January 4, 2016, the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program for Series 56 registered persons will cease to exist. In place of the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program for Series 56 registered persons, the Exchange proposes that Series 57 registered persons be permitted to enroll in the S101 General Program for Series 7 and all other registered persons.
Currently, Exchange Rule 1021 requires all persons engaged or to be engaged in the investment banking or securities business of a member who are to function as principals to be registered as such with the Exchange in the category of registration appropriate to the function to be performed as specified in Rule 1022.
Rule 1022 lists the categories of principal registration. In addition to “General Securities Principal,” which is the broadest category, there are three limited categories of principal registration: Financial and Operations, General Securities Sales Supervisor, and Proprietary Trader. Pursuant to Rule 1022(h), the Proprietary Trader Principal category is available for persons whose supervisory responsibilities in the investment banking and securities business are limited to the activities of a member that involve proprietary trading. Currently, Rule 1022 requires that such persons be registered pursuant to Exchange rules as a Proprietary Trader, be qualified to be so registered by passing the Series 24 examination (the same qualification required for registration as a General Securities Principal), and not function in a principal capacity with responsibility over any area of business activity other than proprietary trading. Under Exchange Rule 1032(b)(1)(B), the prerequisite examination for the
In consultation with FINRA and other exchanges, the Exchange is now proposing to retire the Proprietary Trader Principal category. Accordingly, it is deleting Rule 1022(h) in its entirety. In its place the Exchange is adopting new Rule 1022(h), which adds a new Securities Trader Principal registration category. Under the proposed rule each person associated with a member who is included within the definition of principal in Rule 1021 and who will have supervisory responsibility over the securities trading activities described in Rule 1032(b) must become qualified and registered as a Securities Trader Principal. The proposed rule change should allow BX to more easily track principals with supervisory responsibility over securities trading activities.
To qualify for registration as a Securities Trader Principal, a candidate would first be required to qualify and register as a Securities Trader under Rule 1032(b) and pass the General Securities Principal qualification examination. A person who is qualified and registered as a Securities Trader Principal under the new rule would only have supervisory responsibility over the securities trading activities specified in Rule 1032(b), unless such person were separately qualified and registered in another appropriate principal registration category, such as the General Securities Principal registration category. Finally, a registered General Securities Principal would not be qualified to supervise the securities trading activities described in Rule 1032(b), unless such person also qualified and registered as a Securities Trader under Rule 1032(b) by passing the Securities Trader qualification examination and registered as a Securities Trader Principal.
A person registered as a Proprietary Trader Principal in the CRD system on the effective date of the proposed rule change will be eligible to register as a Securities Trader Principal without having to take any additional examinations. An individual who was registered as a Proprietary Trader Principal in the CRD system prior to the effective date of the proposed rule change will also be eligible to register as a Securities Trader Principal without having to take any additional examinations, provided that no more than two years have passed between the date they [sic] were last registered as a principal and the date they [sic] register as a Securities Trader Principal. Members, however, will be required to affirmatively register persons transitioning to the proposed registration category as Securities Trader Principals on or after the effective date of the proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
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. Implementation of the proposed changes to BX's registration rules in coordination with the FINRA Amendments does not present any competitive issues, but rather is designed to provide less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for members and enhance the ability of the Exchange to fairly and efficiently regulate members, which will further enhance competition. Additionally, the proposed rule change should not affect intramarket competition because all similarly situated representatives and principals will be required to complete the same qualification examinations and maintain the same registrations. Finally, the proposed rule change does not impose any additional examination burdens on persons who are already registered. There is no obligation to take the proposed Series 57 examination in order to continue in their present duties, so the proposed rule change is not expected to disadvantage current registered persons relative to new entrants in this regard.
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. 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.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number
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 its fees and rebates applicable to Members
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 proposes to increase the fee for orders yielding fee code D, which results from an order routed to the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) or routed using the RDOT routing strategy. In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently assesses a fee of $0.0027 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code D. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase this fee to $0.00275 per share. The proposed change would enable the Exchange to pass through the rate that BATS Trading, Inc. (“BATS Trading”), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is charged for routing orders to NYSE when it does not qualify for a volume tiered reduced fee. The proposed change is in response to NYSE's November 2015 fee change where NYSE increased the fee to remove liquidity via routable order types it charges its customers, from a fee of $0.0027 per share to a fee of $0.00275 per share.
In addition to the change proposed above, the Exchange proposes to change certain references on the Fee Schedule in connection with the launch of the options exchange operated by the Exchange's affiliate, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX Options”). First, the Exchange propose [
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of these changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a fee of $0.00275 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code D would increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative means to route to NYSE. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to constitute a stated interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, and enforcement of Rule 28—Equities (“Rule 28”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes a rule change that constitutes a stated interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, and enforcement of Rule 28. The Exchange is not proposing any changes to the text of the current version of Rule 28.
Rule 28 describes and provides the basis for the Exchange's practice of conducting fingerprint-based criminal record checks. The Rule permits the Exchange to obtain fingerprints of prospective and current employees, temporary personnel, independent contractors and service providers of the Exchange and its principal subsidiaries; submit those fingerprints to the Attorney General of the United States or his or her designee (“Attorney General”) for identification and processing; and receive criminal history record information from the Attorney General for evaluation and use, in accordance with applicable law, in enhancing the security of the facilities, systems, data, and/or records of the Exchange and its principal subsidiaries.
The Exchange utilizes a Live-Scan
The foregoing interpretation is consistent with the Exchange's authority under Section 17(f)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”),
The Exchange accordingly believes that under Rule 28 and applicable statutes, the Exchange has the authority to engage an FBI-approved Channel Partner for some or all of the fingerprinting processes described in the Rule. The Exchange believes that this proposed interpretation would ensure the Exchange's continued compliance with its Rules and applicable state and federal law.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Continuing to run fingerprint-based background checks is imperative for the Exchange and its affiliates, as this process helps to identify persons with criminal history records who may pose a threat to the safety of Exchange personnel and/or the security of Exchange facilities and records. This identification and screening process thus enhances business continuity,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would enhance the security of the Exchange's facilities and records without adding any burden on market participants and allow the Exchange continued compliance with its fingerprinting rules and with Section 17(f)(2) of the Act as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change 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 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to discontinue the NYSE Realtime Reference Price (“NYSE RRP”) market data product offering. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below,
In 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) approved the NYSE RRP market data product and certain fees for it.
The Exchange will announce the date that the NYSE RRP will be decommissioned via an NYSE Market Data Notice.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes that discontinuing NYSE RRP and removing it from the Fee Schedule would remove impediments to and perfect a free and open market by streamlining the Exchange's market data product offerings to include those for which there has been more demand and would provide vendors and subscribers with a simpler and more standardized suite of market data products. The proposal to discontinue NYSE RRP is applicable to all members, issuers and other persons and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—by lessening regulation of the market in proprietary data—would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.
The Exchange believes that the discontinuation of a market data product for which there is little or no demand, as is the case with NYSE RRP, is a direct example of efficiency because it acknowledges that investors and the public have indicated that they have little or no use for certain information and allows the Exchange to dedicate resources to developing products (including through innovations of existing products and entirely new products) that provide information for which there is more of an expressed need.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which other exchanges are free to offer similar products. Additionally, since there has been little or no demand for the NYSE RRP product the Exchange's proposed discontinuance will not harm competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule 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 if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VIII of NASDAQ OMX PSX Fees (“PSX Chapter VIII”), in the section entitled PSX Last Sale Data Feeds and NASDAQ Last Sale Plus Data Feeds (“Last Sale”), with language clarifying that the data consolidation component of the fees for NASDAQ Last Sale Plus (“NLS Plus”), a comprehensive data feed offered by NASDAQ OMX Information LLC,
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 this proposal is to amend PSX Chapter VIII, Last Sale (b) with language clarifying that the data consolidation component of the fees for NLS Plus will be charged solely to firms that are Distributors that receive an NLS Plus direct data feed.
NLS Plus
NLS Plus is currently codified in PSX Chapter VIII, Last Sale (b). The fees for NLS Plus are set forth in PSX Chapter VIII, Last Sale (b)(1)-(b)(3) as follows:
(1) Firms that receive NLS Plus shall pay the annual administration fees for NLS, BX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale, and a data consolidation fee of $350 per month.
(2) Firms that receive NLS Plus would either be liable for NLS fees or NASDAQ Basic fees.
(3) In the event that NASDAQ OMX BX and/or NASDAQ OMX PHLX adopt user fees for BX Last Sale and/or PSX Last Sale, firms that receive NLS Plus would also be liable for such fees.
The Exchange now proposes to clarify how the data consolidation fee in PSX Chapter VIII, Last Sale (b) will be charged. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to clarify that firms that are Distributors that receive a NASDAQ Last Sale Plus direct data feed and are Distributors shall pay a data consolidation fee of $350 per month. Thus, only Distributors that receive NLS Plus would be charged the data consolidation fee. As proposed to be amended, PSX Chapter VIII, Last Sale (b)(1) would state:
(1) Firms that receive NLS Plus shall pay the annual administrative fees for NLS, BX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale. Additionally, Internal Distributors or External Distributors shall pay a data consolidation fee of $350 per month.
The NLS Plus fee structure as amended continues to be designed to ensure that vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating a product similar to NLS Plus.
The amendment to clarify that the consolidation fee applies to Distributors that receive the NLS Plus data feed directly but does not apply to persons that receive NLS Plus indirectly through a Distributor is designed to ensure that the Exchange charges the fee only to those persons that directly benefit from the consolidation function. Specifically, if a person wished to combine the products that underlie NLS Plus and distribute them to customers or internal users, it would incur its own consolidation costs. By purchasing NLS Plus for distribution, a Distributor foregoes these costs and instead opts to pay the Exchange to perform the consolidation function for it. Thus, imposing this fee upon Distributors is a logical corollary to the service being provided. By contrast, imposing the fee upon persons receiving the product through Distributors would effectively impose a duplicative charge, since such persons consume the data but are not in the business of distributing it and therefore do not forego consolidation costs when receiving the product. The Exchange further notes that the consolidation fee for BATS One, an analogous product of competing exchanges, is charged solely to external distributors of that product.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
This change is reasonable and consistent with an equitable allocation of fees because it is designed to ensure that the Exchange charges the fee only to those persons that directly benefit from the consolidation function. Specifically, if a person wished to combine the products that underlie NLS Plus and distribute them to customers or internal users, it would incur its own consolidation costs. By purchasing NLS Plus for distribution, a Distributor foregoes these costs and instead opts to pay the Exchange to perform the consolidation function for it. Thus, imposing this fee upon Distributors is a logical corollary to the service being provided. The change is also not unfairly discriminatory. Indeed, imposing the fee upon persons receiving NLS Plus indirectly through Distributors would effectively impose a duplicative charge upon them, since such persons consume the data but are not in the business of distributing it and therefore do not forego consolidation costs when receiving the product. The Exchange further notes that the consolidation fee for BATS One, an analogous product of competing exchanges, is charged solely to external distributors of that product.
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 change proposed herein is designed to ensure that the consolidation fee for NLS Plus is appropriately assessed to Distributors of the product that benefit from the consolidation function performed by NASDAQ OMX Information LLC in creating the product and insures that a duplicative charge is not also assessed against indirect recipients of the product. Thus, the change will avoid the imposition of fees on certain product recipients, while not increasing fees for any recipients.
The market for data products is extremely competitive and firms may freely choose alternative venues and data vendors based on the aggregate fees assessed, the data offered, and the value provided. This rule proposal does not burden competition, which is reflected in the offerings of other exchanges that sell alternative data products
NLS Plus exists in a market for proprietary last sale data products that is currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Similarly, with respect to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF data that is a component of NLS and NLS Plus, allowing exchanges to operate TRFs has permitted them to earn revenues by providing technology and data in support of the non-exchange segment of the market. This revenue opportunity has also resulted in fierce competition between the two current TRF operators, with both TRFs charging extremely low trade reporting fees and rebating the majority of the revenues they receive from core market data to the parties reporting trades.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the execution fees, data quality and price, and distribution of its data products. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot exist. Moreover, data products are valuable to many end users only insofar as they provide information that end users expect will assist them or their customers in making trading decisions.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, the operation of the exchange is characterized by high fixed costs and low marginal costs. This cost structure is common in content and content distribution industries such as software, where developing new software typically requires a large initial investment (and continuing large investments to upgrade the software), but once the software is developed, the incremental cost of providing that software to an additional user is
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-87 and should be submitted on or before December
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
November 10, 2015.
On April 24, 2015, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)
The MSRB is proposing to add paragraphs .14 and .15 of the Supplementary Material to Proposed Rule G-42. Proposed paragraph .14 would provide a narrow exception (“Exception”) to the proposed prohibition on certain principal transactions in Proposed Rule G-42(e)(ii) for transactions in specified types of fixed income securities. Proposed paragraph .15 would define those types of fixed income securities. Amendment No. 2 also makes five minor technical changes to clarify or renumber proposed rule text.
Proposed Rule G-42 would establish core standards of conduct and duties of non-solicitor municipal advisors when engaging in municipal advisory activities. Proposed Rule G-42(a)(ii), consistent with the Exchange Act,
The comment letters in response to the OIP or Amendment No. 1 that addressed the principal transaction ban generally expressed concerns about the breadth of the ban and the lack of any exception. They noted that fiduciaries governed by other regulatory regimes, such as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”),
Prior to the most recent set of comments, the MSRB consistently concluded that the principal transaction ban should be retained with the breadth as proposed. After carefully considering the additional comments, including those of GFOA, generally representative of a key class of entities that Proposed Rule G-42 is intended to protect, the MSRB has determined to incorporate the Exception into Proposed Rule G-42. The MSRB believes that the Exception will address the primary concerns expressed by commenters that, without an exception for transactions in certain fixed income securities when advice is given by the municipal advisor in connection with executing such transactions, the proposed ban would restrict the access of municipal entities to trusted financial advisors, limit their ability to obtain certain financial services and products, create undue burdens on competition, and impose unjustified costs for issuers.
Significantly, the MSRB has developed Proposed Rule G-42 as a cornerstone of a regulatory framework that recognizes and is tailored to the unique characteristics of the municipal securities market, the special responsibilities of municipal entities in their financial matters and in their relationship to their constituents, and the particular role that municipal advisors play in the municipal securities market. The design of the proposed rule, as amended by Amendment No. 2, is in recognition that municipal advisors serve a diverse array of clients, and, in particular, municipal entity clients, which range from large state issuers to small school districts, special districts and other instrumentalities, public pension plans, and collective vehicles, such as local government investment pools (“LGIPs”)
Importantly, the Exception would operate only to take certain conduct out of the specified prohibition on certain principal transactions in proposed Rule G-42(e)(ii). It would not provide a safe harbor from complying with any other applicable law or rules. Thus, a municipal advisor engaging in a principal transaction in compliance with the Exception would need to continue to be mindful of, and comply with, its broader and foundational obligations owed to the client as a fiduciary under the Exchange Act and Proposed Rule G-42, as well as all other applicable provisions of the federal securities laws and state law.
All of the requirements for the Exception take the form of various conditions and limitations. As provided in proposed section (a) of paragraph .14 of the Supplementary Material, a principal transaction could be excepted from the specified prohibition only if the municipal advisor also is a broker-dealer registered under Section 15 of the Exchange Act,
Under proposed section (b) of paragraph .14 of the Supplementary Material, neither the municipal advisor nor any affiliate of the municipal advisor may be providing, or have provided, advice to the municipal entity client as to an issue of municipal securities or a municipal financial product that is directly related to the principal transaction, except advice as to another principal transaction that also meets all the other requirements of proposed paragraph .14. For example, a municipal advisor could not use the Exception to reinvest proceeds from an issue of municipal securities where it was a municipal advisor as to such issue. A municipal advisor could use the Exception, however, for two principal transactions with the same municipal entity client where the transactions are directly related to one another, so long as all of the conditions and limitations of the Exception are met as to each transaction.
Proposed section (c) of paragraph .14 of the Supplementary Material would limit a municipal advisor's principal transactions under the Exception to sales to or purchases from a municipal entity client of any U.S. Treasury security, agency debt security or corporate debt security. In addition, the proposed Exception would not be available for transactions involving municipal escrow investments as defined in Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(h)
To comply with proposed section (d) of paragraph .14 of the Supplementary Material, a municipal advisor would have two options. These two options draw, as generally urged by commenters, upon the procedural requirements in Advisers Act Section 206(3)
Alternatively, a municipal advisor could comply with proposed subsection (d)(2) of paragraph .14 by meeting six requirements, as set forth in proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(A) through (F) of paragraph .14 and summarized below. First, under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(A), neither the municipal advisor nor any of its affiliates could be the issuer, or the underwriter (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 15c2-12(f)(8)),
Second, under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(B), the municipal advisor would be required to obtain from the municipal entity client an executed written, revocable consent that would prospectively authorize the municipal advisor directly or indirectly to act as principal for its own account in selling a security to or purchasing a security from the municipal entity client, so long as such written consent were obtained after written disclosure to the municipal entity client explaining: (i) The circumstances under which the municipal advisor directly or indirectly may engage in principal transactions; (ii) the nature and significance of conflicts with the municipal entity client's interests as a result of the transactions; and (iii) how the municipal advisor addresses those conflicts.
Third, under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(C), the municipal advisor, prior to the execution of each principal transaction, would be required to: (i) Inform the municipal entity client, orally or in writing, of the capacity in which it may act with respect to such transaction and (ii) obtain consent from the municipal entity client, orally or in writing, to act as principal for its own account with respect to such transaction.
Fourth, under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(D), a municipal advisor would be required to send a written confirmation at or before completion of each principal transaction that includes the information required by 17 CFR 240.10b-10 or MSRB Rule G-15, and a conspicuous, plain English statement informing the municipal entity client that the municipal advisor: (i) Disclosed to the client prior to the execution of the transaction that the municipal advisor may be acting in a principal capacity in connection with the transaction and the client authorized the transaction and (ii) sold the security to, or bought the security from, the client for its own account.
Fifth, under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(E), a municipal advisor would be required to send its municipal entity client, no less frequently than annually, written disclosure containing a list of all transactions that were executed in the client's account in reliance upon this Exception, and the date and price of the transactions.
Sixth, under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(F), each written disclosure would be required to include a conspicuous, plain English statement regarding the ability of the municipal entity client to revoke the prospective written consent to principal transactions without penalty at any time by written notice.
A municipal advisor's use and compliance with the requirements of the Exception would not be construed as relieving it in any way from acting in the best interests of its municipal entity client nor from any obligation that may be imposed by the Exchange Act, other provisions of Proposed Rule G-42 (other than subsection (e)(ii) of the proposed rule), or other applicable provisions of the federal securities laws and state law.
In Amendment No. 2, the MSRB makes five minor, technical amendments, which would clarify, correct cross-references in, or renumber certain provisions of Proposed Rule G-42. First, the MSRB is making minor, technical changes to Proposed Rule G-42(d) regarding recommendations. These amendments set forth the initial text that precedes proposed subsection (d)(i) in two sentences rather than one. The purpose of this change is to clarify the requirements that would apply when a municipal advisor makes a recommendation of a municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product and when a municipal advisor reviews such a recommendation of another party. These amendments also clarify in the initial text that precedes proposed subsection (d)(i), consistent with Proposed Rule G-42(d)(ii), that a municipal advisor reviewing a recommendation of another party could determine that the recommended municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product is not suitable for the client.
Second, Amendment No. 2 revises proposed Rule G-42(e)(ii) to begin with the new clause, “Except as provided in paragraph .14 of the Supplementary Material of this rule,” and then continue as previously proposed, except that the phrase “municipal securities transaction” is changed to “issue of municipal securities” in order to more closely track the relevant statutory language.
The MSRB proposes to make the proposed rule change effective six months after Commission approval of all changes.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding the foregoing, including whether the filing as amended by Amendment No. 2 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.
For the Commission, 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 the fee schedule applicable to Members
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 proposes to increase the fee for orders yielding fee code D, which results from an order routed to the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) or routed using the RDOT routing strategy. In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently assesses a fee of $0.0027 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code D. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase this fee to $0.00275 per share. The proposed change would enable the Exchange to pass through the rate that BATS Trading, Inc. (“BATS Trading”), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is charged for routing orders to NYSE when it does not qualify for a volume tiered reduced fee. The proposed change is in response to NYSE's November 2015 fee change where NYSE increased the fee to remove liquidity via routable order types it charges its customers, from a fee of $0.0027 per share to a fee of $0.00275 per share.
In addition to the change proposed above, the Exchange proposes to change certain references on the Fee Schedule in connection with the launch of the options exchange operated by the Exchange. First, the Exchange propose [sic] to modify references in the Unicast Access section under BATS Connect fees to refer to “BZX Options” instead of “BATS Options”. Second, the Exchange proposes to add reference to
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of these changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a fee of $0.00275 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code D would increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative means to route to NYSE. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to remove Eurex Frankfurt AG (“Eurex Frankfurt”) as an indirect, non-U.S. upstream owner of the Exchange (the “Transaction”). In order to consummate the Transaction, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Amend and restate the Third Amended and Restated Trust Agreement (the “Trust Agreement”) that exists among International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. (“ISE Holdings”), U.S. Exchange Holdings, Inc. (“U.S. Exchange Holdings”), and the Trustees (as defined therein) in order to remove references to Eurex Frankfurt; and (ii) amend and restate the Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of U.S. Exchange Holdings (“U.S. Exchange Holdings COI”) to update a reference therein to the Trust Agreement.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Commission's Public Reference Room and on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposal is to remove Eurex Frankfurt as an indirect, non-U.S. upstream owner of the Exchange.
On December 17, 2007, ISE Holdings, the sole, direct parent of the Exchange, became a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of U.S. Exchange Holdings.
The Transaction is designed to simplify the indirect ownership structure of the Exchange.
In order to consummate the Transaction in the manner described above, certain administrative amendments will need to be made to the Trust Agreement and the U.S. Exchange Holdings COI. The proposed amendments to such documents are described below.
The Trust Agreement serves four general purposes: (i) To accept, hold and dispose of Trust Shares
The Exchange proposes to amend certain provisions of the Trust Agreement in connection with the Transaction. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Update the recitals of the Trust Agreement with respect to the Transaction; and (ii) remove references to Eurex Frankfurt from the definition of “Affected Affiliate” in Section 1.1 of the Trust Agreement.
The Exchange proposes to make a non-substantive, administrative change to the U.S. Exchange Holdings COI to update a reference therein to the Trust Agreement. Article THIRTEENTH of the U.S. Exchange Holdings COI contains references to (i) the “Third Amended and Restated” Trust Agreement, which, as discussed herein, will become the “Fourth Amended and Restated” Trust Agreement; and (ii) the effective date of the Trust Agreement, which, as discussed herein, will change to a date in December 2015 that corresponds to the effective closing date of the Transaction. The Exchange proposes to update these references. The Exchange also proposes to retitle the document as the “Fourth” Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of U.S. Exchange Holdings and update the effective date thereof.
As described above, each of the Non-U.S. Upstream Owners, including Eurex Frankfurt, has previously taken appropriate steps to incorporate provisions regarding ownership, jurisdiction, books and records, and other issues related to their control of the Exchange. Specifically, each of such Non-U.S. Upstream Owners has adopted resolutions, which were previously approved by the Commission, to incorporate these concepts with respect to itself, as well as its board members, officers, employees, and agents (as applicable), to the extent that they are involved in the activities of the Exchange.
As Eurex Frankfurt will cease to be a Non-U.S. Upstream Owner of the Exchange after the Transaction, the Exchange proposes that the resolutions of Eurex Frankfurt, as referenced above, will cease to be rules of the Exchange as of a date in December 2015 that corresponds to the effective closing date of the Transaction.
Upon the consummation of the Transaction the Exchange will continue to operate and regulate its market and members in the same exact manner as it did prior to the Transactions. The Transaction will not impair the ability of ISE Holdings, the Exchange, or any facility thereof, to carry out their respective functions and responsibilities under the Act. Moreover, the Transaction will not impair the ability of the Commission to enforce the Act with respect to the Exchange and its Non-U.S. Upstream Owners (which will solely be Deutsche Börse after the Transaction), including each of their directors, officers, employees and agents, to the extent they are involved in the activities of the Exchange. As such, the Commission's plenary regulatory authority over the Exchange will not be affected by the approval of this proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)of the Act,
The Exchange also believes that this filing furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
Approval of this proposed rule change will enable ISE Holdings to continue its operations and the Exchange to continue its orderly discharge of regulatory duties to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Finally, the Exchange is not proposing any significant or novel regulatory issues, nor is it proposing any changes to the Exchange's operational or trading structure in connection with the Transaction. Instead, the Exchange represents that the proposed rule change consists of administrative amendments to the Trust Agreement and the U.S. Exchange Holdings COI and addresses certain resolutions in relation to Eurex Frankfurt, which currently is a Non-U.S. Upstream Owner of the Exchange, but whose status as such will cease as a result of the Transaction, such that the resolutions will cease to be rules of the Exchange as they relate to Eurex Frankfurt, and that no changes will be made to other aspects of the Exchange's organizational documents that were previously approved by the Commission.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change; or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to make certain representations relating to the NYSE Best Quote & Trades (NYSE BQT) data feed. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The NYSE Best Quotes and Trades (“NYSE BQT”) data feed, a market data product offered by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), provides best bid and offer (“BBO”) and last sale information for the Exchange and its affiliates, NYSE and NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”).
While NYSE MKT, NYSE and NYSE Arca are the exclusive distributors of their BBO and Trades feeds from which the data elements are taken to create the NYSE BQT data feed, the NYSE represented that it would not have any unfair advantage over competing vendors with respect to obtaining data from NYSE, NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT.
The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations or others would have in complying with the proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
NYSE MKT is the source of its own market data, including the NYSE MKT market data that the NYSE includes in the NYSE BQT data feed. NYSE MKT represents that it will continue to make available the individual underlying NYSE MKT market data products, NYSE MKT Trades and NYSE MKT BBO, that are included in NYSE BQT, and that the source of the NYSE MKT market data the NYSE uses to create the NYSE BQT data feed is the same as the source available to other vendors. Thus, a vendor creating a product to compete with NYSE BQT could also obtain the six underlying data feeds in NYSE BQT and perform a similar aggregation and consolidation function to create the same data product with the same latency.
The NYSE BQT data feed helps to protect a free and open market by providing vendors and subscribers with additional choices in receiving this type of market data, thus promoting competition and innovation.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its Internet Web site at
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to constitute a stated interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, and enforcement of Rule 28. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes a rule change that constitutes a stated interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, and enforcement of Rule 28 (“Rule 28”). The Exchange is not proposing any changes to the text of the current version of Rule 28.
Approved in 2003,
The Exchange utilizes a Live-Scan
The foregoing interpretation is consistent with the Exchange's authority under Section 17(f)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”),
The Exchange accordingly believes that under Rule 28 and applicable statutes, the Exchange has the authority to engage an FBI-approved Channel Partner for some or all of the fingerprinting processes described in the Rule. The Exchange believes that this proposed interpretation would ensure the Exchange's continued compliance with its Rules and applicable state and federal law.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Continuing to run fingerprint-based background checks is imperative for the Exchange and its affiliates, as this process helps to identify persons with criminal history records who may pose a threat to the safety of Exchange personnel and/or the security of Exchange facilities and records. This identification and screening process thus enhances business continuity, workplace safety, and the security of the Exchange's operations. The use of an FBI-approved Channel Partner in some or all phases of this process is consistent with Rule 28 and applicable state and federal law, and in furtherance of the important objectives described herein. Additionally, the use of a Channel Partner is consistent with the fingerprinting method currently employed by other SROs.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would enhance the security of the Exchange's facilities and records without adding any burden on market participants and allow the Exchange continued compliance with its fingerprinting rules and with Section 17(f)(2) of the Act as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 4 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule17a-12 requires OTC derivatives dealers to file quarterly Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single Reports (“FOCUS” reports) on Part IIB of Form X-17A-5, the basic document for reporting the financial and operational condition of over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives dealers. Rule 17a-12 also requires that OTC derivatives dealers file audited financial statements annually. The reports required under Rule 17a-12 provide the Commission with information used to monitor the operations of OTC derivatives dealers and to enforce their compliance with the Commission's rules. These reports also enable the Commission to review the business activities of OTC derivatives dealers and to anticipate, where possible, how these dealers may be affected by significant economic events.
There are currently four registered OTC derivatives dealers. The staff expects that one additional firm will register as an OTC derivatives dealer within the next three years. The staff estimates that the average amount of time necessary to prepare and file the quarterly reports required by the rule is eighty hours per OTC derivatives dealer
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 public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fees and rebates applicable to Members
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 proposes to increase the fee for orders yielding fee code D, which results from an order routed to the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) using Destination Specific, RDOT, RDOX, TRIM or SLIM routing strategy. The Exchange has previously provided a discounted fee for certain orders routed to the largest market centers measured by volume (NYSE, NYSE Arca and NASDAQ), which, in each instance has been $0.0001 less per share for orders routed to such market centers by the Exchange than such market centers currently charge for removing liquidity (referred to by the Exchange as “One Under” pricing). NYSE is implementing certain pricing changes effective November 2, 2015, including modification from a fee to remove liquidity of $0.0027 per share to a fee of $0.00275 per share.
In addition to the change proposed above, the Exchange proposes to change certain references on the Fee Schedule in connection with the launch of the options exchange operated by the Exchange's affiliate, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX Options”). First, the Exchange propose [sic] to modify references in the Definitions section of the fee schedule and Unicast Access section under BATS Connect fees to refer to “BZX Options” instead of “BATS Options”. Second, the Exchange proposes to add reference to EDGX Options in the list of Exchange affiliates to which such fees do not apply.
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee Schedule immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of these changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its proposal to charge a fee of $0.00265 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code D would increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative means to route to NYSE at a discounted rate. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
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 proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 3.4 (Qualification and Registration) regarding the categories of registration and respective qualification examinations required for individual Permit Holder [
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 3.4 (Qualification and Registration) to replace the Proprietary Trader (PT) registration category and qualification examination (Series 56) with the Securities Trader (TD) registration category and qualification examination (Series 57). In addition, the Exchange proposes to replace the Proprietary Trader Principal (TP) registration category with a Securities Trader Principal (TP) registration category for individual TPHs or associated person [sic] who either: (i) Supervise or monitor proprietary trading, market-making and/or brokerage activities for broker-dealers; (ii) supervise or train those engaged in proprietary trading, market-making and/or effecting transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer, with respect to those activities; and/or (iii) are officers, partners or directors of a Permit Holder, as described in paragraph (a)(2) of Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 3.4. The Exchange also proposes to replace the Proprietary Trader Compliance Officer (CT) registration category with the Securities Trader Compliance Officer (CT) registration category for Chief Compliance Officers (or individuals performing similar functions) of a TPH or TPH organization. This filing is, in all material respects, based upon SR-FINRA-2015-017, which was recently approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”).
Rule 3.4 sets forth various qualification and registration requirements that individual Permit Holders and associated persons must satisfy in order to transact business on the Exchange. Among the qualification and registration requirements set forth in Rule 3.4, Interpretation and Policy .07 provides that individual Permit Holders and associated persons that engage in proprietary trading, market-making, or effect transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer must register and qualify as a Proprietary Trader (TP) in WebCRD.
Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 3.4 further requires that individual Permit Holders and associated persons with supervisory responsibility over proprietary trading activities or who is [sic] an officer, partner, or director of a Permit Holder or Permit Holder organization qualify and register as a Proprietary Trader Principal. Specifically, under paragraph (a)(2) of Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 3.4, an individual Permit Holder or associated person who either: (i) Supervises or monitors proprietary trading, market-making and/or brokerage activities for broker-dealers; (ii) supervises or trains those engaged in proprietary trading, market-making and/or effecting transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer, with respect to those activities; and/or (iii) is an officer, partner or director of a Permit Holder is required register and qualify as a Proprietary Trader Principal (TP) in WebCRD and satisfy prerequisite registration and qualification requirements, including, but not limited to passing the Series 24 General Securities Principal Examination or an acceptable alternative qualification examination.
The Exchange proposes to replace the Series 56 qualification examination with the Series 57 qualification examination for those registration categories where the Series 56 is currently an acceptable qualification standard.
The Exchange will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Circular. Currently, the Exchange intends for the effective date to be January 4, 2016. Under the proposed rule, individual Permit Holders and associated persons who have passed the Proprietary Trader (Series 56) qualification examination and who have registered as Proprietary Trader [sic] (PT) in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed rule change and individual Permit Holders and associated persons who have passed the General Securities Representative (Series 7) qualification examination and who have registered as Proprietary Traders (PT) in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed rule change would be grandfathered as Securities Traders (TDs) without having to take any additional examinations and without having to take any other action, provided that the individual TPH's or associated person's registration has not been revoked by the Exchange as a disciplinary sanction and no more than two years have passed between the date that the individual Permit Holder or associated person last registered as a Proprietary Trader (PT) and the effective date. After the effective date, an individual Permit Holder or associated person would need to pass the new Series 57 Securities Trader qualification examination and register as a Securities Trader (TD).
In addition, individual Permit Holders and associated persons who have either passed the Proprietary Trader (PT) qualification examination or the General Securities Representative (Series 7) qualification examination and who have registered as Proprietary Traders (PT) in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed rule change and who have also passed the General Securities Principal (Series 24) qualification examination (or have completed any of the alternative acceptable qualifications requirements
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that adoption of the Securities Trader registration category and Series 57 Securities Trader qualification examination registration requirement is consistent with the Act. FINRA has indicated that the Series 57 qualification examination is being developed in an effort to adopt a more tailored examination. The Exchange believes that a more tailored qualification examination for individual Permit Holders and associated persons engaged in trading activities is a measure designed to help ensure professionalism among market participants, prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, and promote just and equitable principles of trade. The Exchange also believes that it is in the interests of investors and the general public to develop a more tailored qualification examination for proprietary traders and that a more uniform qualification standard may help ensure fair and orderly markets. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is in the interests of all market participants to provide consistent qualification and registration requirements across markets. The Exchange believes that harmonizing the Exchange's qualification and registration requirements with those of FINRA and the other national securities exchanges would further such interests.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change relating to Securities Traders, which is, in all material respects, based upon and substantially similar to, recent rule changes adopted by FINRA and which is being filed in conjunction with similar filings by the other national securities exchanges, will reduce the regulatory burden placed on market participants engaged in trading activities across different markets. The Exchange believes that the harmonization of these registration requirements across the various markets will reduce burdens on competition by removing impediments to participation in the national market system and promoting competition among participants across the multiple national securities exchanges.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
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. 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
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 proposes to remove Eurex Frankfurt AG (“Eurex Frankfurt”) as an indirect, non-U.S. upstream owner of the Exchange (the “Transaction”). In order to consummate the Transaction, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Amend and restate the Third Amended and Restated Trust Agreement (the “Trust Agreement”) that exists among International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. (“ISE Holdings”), U.S. Exchange Holdings, Inc. (“U.S. Exchange Holdings”), and the Trustees (as defined therein) in order to remove references to Eurex Frankfurt; and (ii) amend and restate the Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of U.S. Exchange Holdings (“U.S. Exchange Holdings COI”) to update a reference therein to the Trust Agreement.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Commission's Public Reference Room and on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposal is to remove Eurex Frankfurt as an indirect, non-U.S. upstream owner of the Exchange.
On December 17, 2007, ISE Holdings, the sole, direct parent of the Exchange, became a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of U.S. Exchange Holdings. U.S. Exchange Holdings is 85% directly owned by Eurex Frankfurt and 15% directly owned by Deutsche Börse AG (“Deutsche Börse”). Eurex Frankfurt is a wholly-owned, direct subsidiary of Deutsche Börse.
The Transaction is designed to simplify the indirect ownership structure of the Exchange.
In order to consummate the Transaction in the manner described above, certain administrative amendments will need to be made to the Trust Agreement and the U.S. Exchange Holdings COI. The proposed amendments to such documents are described below.
The Trust Agreement serves four general purposes: (i) To accept, hold and dispose of Trust Shares
The Exchange proposes to amend certain provisions of the Trust Agreement in connection with the Transaction. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Update the recitals of the Trust Agreement with respect to the Transaction; and (ii) remove references to Eurex Frankfurt from the definition of “Affected Affiliate” in Section 1.1 of the Trust Agreement.
The Exchange proposes to make a non-substantive, administrative change to the U.S. Exchange Holdings COI to update a reference therein to the Trust Agreement. Article THIRTEENTH of the U.S. Exchange Holdings COI contains references to (i) the “Third Amended and Restated” Trust Agreement, which, as discussed herein, will become the “Fourth Amended and Restated” Trust Agreement; and (ii) the effective date of the Trust Agreement, which, as discussed herein, will change to a date in December 2015 that corresponds to the effective closing date of the Transaction. The Exchange proposes to update these references. The Exchange also proposes to retitle the document as the “Fourth” Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of U.S. Exchange Holdings and update the effective date thereof.
As described above, each of the Non-U.S. Upstream Owners, including Eurex Frankfurt, has previously taken appropriate steps to incorporate provisions regarding ownership, jurisdiction, books and records, and other issues related to their control of the Exchange. Specifically, each of such Non-U.S. Upstream Owners has adopted resolutions, which were previously approved by the Commission, to incorporate these concepts with respect to itself, as well as its board members, officers, employees, and agents (as applicable), to the extent that they are involved in the activities of the Exchange.
As Eurex Frankfurt will cease to be a Non-U.S. Upstream Owner of the Exchange after the Transaction, the Exchange proposes that the resolutions of Eurex Frankfurt, as referenced above, will cease to be rules of the Exchange as of a date in December 2015 that corresponds to the effective closing date of the Transaction.
Upon the consummation of the Transaction the Exchange will continue to operate and regulate its market and members in the same exact manner as it did prior to the Transactions. The Transaction will not impair the ability of ISE Holdings, the Exchange, or any facility thereof, to carry out their respective functions and responsibilities under the Act. Moreover, the Transaction will not impair the ability of the Commission to enforce the Act with respect to the Exchange and its Non-U.S. Upstream Owners (which will solely be Deutsche Börse after the Transaction), including each of their directors, officers, employees and agents, to the extent they are involved in the activities of the Exchange. As such, the Commission's plenary
The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)of the Act,
The Exchange also believes that this filing furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
Approval of this proposed rule change will enable ISE Holdings to continue its operations and the Exchange to continue its orderly discharge of regulatory duties to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Finally, the Exchange is not proposing any significant or novel regulatory issues, nor is it proposing any changes to the Exchange's operational or trading structure in connection with the Transaction. Instead, the Exchange represents that the proposed rule change consists of administrative amendments to the Trust Agreement and the U.S. Exchange Holdings COI and addresses certain resolutions in relation to Eurex Frankfurt, which currently is a Non-U.S. Upstream Owner of the Exchange, but whose status as such will cease as a result of the Transaction, such that the resolutions will cease to be rules of the Exchange as they relate to Eurex Frankfurt, and that no changes will be made to other aspects of the Exchange's organizational documents that were previously approved by the Commission.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change; or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
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 the fees and rebates applicable to Members
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 proposes to increase the fee for orders yielding fee code D, which results from an order routed to the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) using Destination Specific, RDOT, RDOX, TRIM or SLIM routing strategy. The Exchange has previously provided a discounted fee for certain orders routed to the largest market centers measured by volume (NYSE, NYSE Arca and NASDAQ), which, in each instance has been $0.0001 less per share for orders routed to such market centers by the Exchange than such market centers currently charge for removing liquidity (referred to by the Exchange as “One Under” pricing). NYSE is implementing certain pricing changes effective November 2, 2015, including modification from a fee to remove liquidity of $0.0027 per share to a fee of $0.00275 per share.
In addition to the change proposed above, the Exchange proposes to change certain references on the Fee Schedule in connection with the launch of the options exchange operated by the Exchange's affiliate, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX Options”). First, the Exchange propose [sic] to modify references in the Unicast Access section under BATS Connect fees to refer to “BZX Options” instead of “BATS Options”. Second, the Exchange proposes to add reference to EDGX Options in the list of Exchange affiliates to which such fees do not apply.
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee Schedule immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of these changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its proposal to charge a fee of $0.00265 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code D would increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative means to route to NYSE at a discounted rate. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to reflect a change to the means of achieving the investment objective applicable to shares of the RiverFront Strategic Income Fund, which has been approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), and is currently listed and traded on the Exchange, under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of,
The Commission has approved listing and trading on the Exchange of shares (“Shares”) of the RiverFront Strategic Income Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the ALPS ETF Trust (the “Trust”),
RiverFront Investment Group, LLC (“RiverFront”) is the investment sub-adviser for the Fund (the “Sub-Adviser”).
As stated in the Prior Release, the Fund's investment objective is to seek total return, with an emphasis on income as the source of that total return. The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing in a global portfolio of fixed income securities of various maturities, ratings and currency denominations. The Fund utilizes various investment strategies in a broad array of fixed income sectors. The Fund allocates its investments based upon the analysis of the Sub-Adviser of the pertinent economic and market conditions, as well as yield, maturity and currency considerations.
In this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to reflect a change to the description of the investments the Sub-Adviser will utilize to implement the Fund's investment objective, as described below.
First, the Prior Release stated that the Fund may invest up to 5% of its assets in mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) (which may include commercial MBS) or other asset-backed securities (“ABS”) issued or guaranteed by private issuers.
The Sub-Adviser believes the revised representations will permit the Sub-Adviser, through such additional flexibility, to better achieve the Fund's stated investment objective to seek total return, with an emphasis on income as the source of that total return. The Fund will continue to primarily invest in fixed income instruments. The Sub-Adviser represents that the purpose of this change is to provide additional flexibility to the Sub-Adviser to meet the Fund's investment objective by potentially expanding the percentage of the Fund's assets that may be allocated to Private MBS/ABS that would provide the Fund with an enhanced ability to identify debt issues that have sound investment characteristics while providing the potential for an increased yield for investors.
Second, the Prior Release stated that the Fund may not hold more than 15% of its net assets in: (1) illiquid securities (which include participation interests); and (2) Rule 144A securities. Going forward, the Fund wishes to change this representation to state that, as an investment restriction of the Fund, the Fund may not hold more than 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment),
Third, the Prior Release stated that the Fund may also invest in structured notes.
Fourth, the Prior Release stated the Fund may invest without limitation in debt securities denominated in foreign
The Sub-Adviser represents that there is no change to the Fund's investment objective. The Fund will continue to comply with all initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
Except for the changes noted above, all other facts presented (except the statement “[t]he Fund will be managed by WisdomTree Asset Management, Inc.”, given that ALPS Advisors, Inc. currently serves as the Fund's investment adviser) and representations made in the Prior Release remain unchanged.
All terms referenced but not defined herein are defined in the Prior Release.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will continue to be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Sub-Adviser represents that increasing the Fund's flexibility to invest in Private MBS/ABS would allow the Sub-Adviser to better achieve the Fund's investment objective. In addition, the liquidity of Private MBS/ABS will be a substantial factor in the Fund's security selection process. The Fund's proposed limitation on investments in structured notes to up to 20% of its total assets is comparable to the limitation for investments in structured notes previously approved by the Commission for other issues of Managed Fund Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Sub-Adviser represents that there is no change to the Fund's investment objective. As noted above, the liquidity of Private MBS/ABS will be a substantial factor in the Fund's security selection process. The Sub-Adviser also represents that the purpose of this change is to provide additional flexibility to the Sub-Adviser to meet the Fund's investment objective by potentially expanding the percentage of the Fund's assets that may be allocated to Private MBS/ABS that would provide the Fund with an enhanced ability to identify debt issues that have sound investment characteristics while providing the potential for an increased yield for investors.
With respect to the 15% limitation on investments in illiquid assets, the Exchange notes that the Commission has approved similar representations relating to issues of Managed Fund Shares proposed to be listed and traded on the Exchange.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that the Fund will continue to comply with all initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. Except for the changes noted above, all other representations made in the Rule 19b-4 filing underlying the Prior Release remain unchanged.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change regarding investments in asset-backed and/or mortgage-backed debt securities is consistent with other similar actively managed fixed income funds which the Commission has approved for listing and trading
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the 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, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
• 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.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to adopt a principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material, non-public information by Exchange Market Makers
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material, non-public information by Market Makers by deleting Rule 610 (Limitations on Dealings). In so doing, the Exchange would harmonize its rules amongst its Members
The Exchange has three classes of registered Market Makers. Pursuant to Rule 600, a Market Maker is a Member with Registered Options Traders that is registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making transactions as a dealer-specialist. As the rule further provides, a Market Maker can be either a RMM, a LMM or a PLMM. All Market Makers are subject to the requirements of Rules 603 and 604, which set forth the obligations of Market Makers, particularly relating to quoting.
Rule 603 specifies the obligations of Market Makers, which include making markets “that, absent changed market conditions, will be honored for the number of contracts entered into the Exchange's System in all series of options classes to which the Market Maker is appointed.” The quoting obligations of Market Makers are set forth in Rule 604. Rules 603 and 604
Notwithstanding that Market Makers have access to the same Exchange trading information as all other market participants on the Exchange, the Exchange has specific rules governing how Market Makers may operate. Rule 610(a) provides that “[n]o Member, other than a Market Maker acting pursuant to Rule 603, limited partner, officer, employee, approved person(s), who is affiliated with a Market Maker or Member, shall, during the period of such affiliation, purchase or sell any option in which such Market Maker is appointed for any account in which such person(s) has a direct or indirect interest.” Rule 610(b) further provides that an approved person or Member affiliated with a Member is not subject to the restrictions in Rule 610(a) if the affiliated Market Maker implements detailed Exchange-approved procedures to restrict the flow of material, non-public information to such affiliated party. The Exemption Guidelines set forth in Rule 610(e) through (j) outline the organizational structure of the so-called “Chinese Wall” procedures which are also referred to as an “Information Barrier”, which a Market Maker must implement to be exempt from the requirements of Rule 610(a). The Information Barrier is meant to ensure that an affiliate of a Market Maker will not have access to material, non-public information and that a Market Maker will not misuse material, non-public information obtained from an affiliated Member.
The Exchange believes that the Exemption Guidelines in Rule 610 for Market Makers are no longer necessary and proposes to delete the Rule. Rather, the Exchange believes that Rule 303 governing the misuse of material, non-public information provides for an appropriate, principles-based approach to prevent the market abuses Rule 610 is designed to address. Specifically Rule 303 requires every Member to establish, maintain and enforce written procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration the nature of such Member's business, to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information by such Member or persons associated with such Member. For purposes of this requirement, the misuse of material, non-public information includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation, or in any related securities or related options or other derivative securities, while in possession of material, non-public information concerning that issuer; or
(b) Trading in a security or related options or other derivative securities, while in possession of material non-public information concerning imminent transactions in the security or related securities; or
(c) Disclosing to another person or entity any material, non-public information involving a corporation whose shares are publicly traded or an imminent transaction in an underlying security or related securities for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such material, non-public information.
Because Market Makers are already subject to the requirements of Rule 303 and because Market Makers do not have any trading or information advantage over other Members, the Exchange does not believe that it is necessary to separately require specific limitations on dealings between Market Makers and their affiliates. Deleting Rule 610 would provide Market Makers and Members with the flexibility to adapt their policies and procedures as reasonably designed to reflect changes to their business model, business activities, or the securities market in a manner similar to how Members on the Exchange currently operate and consistent with Rule 303.
As noted above, PLMMs are distinguished under Exchange rules from other Market Makers only to the extent that PLMMs have heightened obligations. However, none of these heightened obligations provides different or greater access to non-public information than any other market participant on the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that even with this proposed rule change, pursuant to Rule 303, a Market Maker would still be obligated to ensure that its policies and procedures reflect the current state of its business and continue to be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable federal securities law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules, including being reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material, non-public information. While an Information Barrier would not specifically be required under the proposal, Rule 303 already requires that a Member consider its business model or business activities in structuring its policies and procedures, which may dictate that an information barrier or other type of functional separation be part of the set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.
The Exchange is not proposing to change what is considered to be material, non-public information, and thus does not expect there to be any changes to the types of information that an affiliated person of a Market Maker could share with such Market Maker. In that regard, the proposed rule change will not permit an Electronic Exchange Member to have access to any non-public order or quote information of the affiliated Market Maker, including hidden or undisplayed size or price information of such orders and quotes. Market Makers are not allowed to post hidden or undisplayed orders and quotes on the Exchange. Members do not expect to receive any additional order or quote information as a result of this proposed rule change.
Further, the Exchange does not believe that there will be any material change to existing Member Information Barriers as a result of removal of the Exchange's pre-approval requirements. In fact, the Exchange anticipates that eliminating the pre-approval requirement should facilitate implementation of changes to Member Information Barriers as necessary to protect against the misuse of material, non-public information. The Exchange also suggests that the pre-approval requirement is unnecessary because Market Makers now do not have agency responsibilities to the book, or time and place information advantages because of
The Exchange further notes that under Rule 303, a Member would be able to structure its firm to provide for its options Market Makers, as applicable, to be structured with its equities and customer-facing businesses, provided that any such structuring would be done in a manner reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material, non-public information. For example, pursuant to Rule 303 a Market Maker on the Exchange could be in the same independent trading unit, as defined in Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO,
The Exchange believes that the proposed reliance on the principles-based Rule 303 would ensure that a Member that operates a Market Maker would be required to protect against the misuse of any material, non-public information. As noted above, Rule 303 already requires that firms refrain from trading while in possession of material, non-public information concerning imminent transactions in the security or related product. The Exchange believes that moving to a principles-based approach rather than prescribing how and when to wall off a Market Maker from the rest of the firm would provide Members operating as Market Makers with appropriate tools to better manage risk across a firm, including integrating options positions with other positions of the firm or, as applicable, by the respective independent trading unit. Specifically, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate for risk management purposes for a Member operating a Market Maker to be able to consider both options Market Maker traded positions for purposes of calculating net positions consistent with Rule 200 of Regulation SHO, calculating intra-day net capital positions, and managing risk generally, and in compliance with Rule 15c3-5 under the Act (the “Market Access Rule”).
The Exchange further notes that if Market Makers are integrated with other market making operations, they would be subject to existing rules that prohibit Members from disadvantaging their customers or other market participants by improperly capitalizing on a member organization's access to the receipt of material, non-public information. As such, a member organization that integrates its market maker operations together with equity market making would need to protect customer information consistent with existing obligations to protect such information. The Exchange has rules prohibiting Members from disadvantaging their customers or other market participants by improperly capitalizing on the Members' access to or receipt of material, nonpublic information. For example, Exchange Rule 1308 (Supervision of Accounts) requires Members to develop and maintain adequate controls over each of its business activities and to be responsible for internal supervision and control of the organization and compliance with securities laws and regulations.
MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by adopting a principles-based approach to permit a Member operating a Market Maker to maintain and enforce policies and procedures to, among other things, prohibit the misuse of material, non-public information and eliminate restrictions on how a Member structures its market making operations. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is based on an approved rule of the Exchange to which Market Makers are already subject, Rule 303, thus Market Makers would continue to be subject to current Exchange rules and to the requirements under the Act
The Exchange further believes the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade because existing rules make clear to Market Makers and Members the type of conduct that is prohibited by the Exchange. While the proposal
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would still require that Members operating Market Makers maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable federal securities laws and regulations and with Exchange rules. Even though there would no longer be pre-approval of Market Maker Information Barriers, any Market Maker's written policies and procedures would continue to be subject to oversight by the Exchange and therefore the elimination of prescribed restrictions should not reduce the effectiveness of the Exchange rules to protect against the misuse of material, non-public information. Rather, Members will be able to utilize a flexible, principles-based approach to modify their policies and procedures as appropriate to reflect changes to their business model, business activities, or to the securities market itself. Moreover, while specified Information Barriers may no longer be required, a Member's business model or business activities may dictate that an Information Barrier or functional separation be part of the set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule change will maintain the existing protection of investors and the public interest that is currently applicable to Market Makers, while at the same time removing impediments to and perfecting a free and open market by moving to a principles-based approach to protect against the misuse of material non-public information.
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. On the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition by allowing Market Makers to comply with applicable Exchange rules in a manner best suited to their business models, business activities, and the securities markets, thus reducing regulatory burdens while still ensuring compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and Exchange rules. The Exchange believes that the proposal will foster a fair and orderly marketplace without being overly burdensome upon Market Makers.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would eliminate a burden on competition for Members which currently exists as a result of disparate rule treatment between the options and equities markets regarding how to protect against the misuse of material, non-public information. For those Members that are also members of equity exchanges, their respective equity market maker operations are now subject to a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse of material non-public information.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-63 and should be submitted on or before December 8, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to a proposal [sic] to retire the Limited Representative —Equity Trader, Limited Representative—Proprietary Trader and Limited Principal—Proprietary Trader registration categories and to establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal registration categories. The Exchange is also amending its rules to establish the Series 57 examination as the appropriate qualification examination for Securities Traders and deleting the rule referring to the S501 continuing education program currently applicable to Proprietary Traders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing herein to replace the Series 56 with the Series 57 examination, and to make additional changes to its registration rules. Specifically, in response to the FINRA Amendments (defined below), the Exchange is proposing to retire the Limited Representative—Equity Trader (“Equity Trader”)
Currently, under Nasdaq Rule 1032(a)(1), each person associated with a member who is included within the definition of a “representative”
Nasdaq Rule 1032(f) currently also requires each person associated with a member who is included within the definition of a representative to register with Nasdaq as an Equity Trader if, with respect to transactions in equity, preferred or convertible debt securities on Nasdaq, such person is engaged in proprietary trading, the execution of transactions on an agency basis, or the direct supervision of such activities (collectively, “Nasdaq equities trading”), other than any person associated with (A) a member whose trading activities are conducted principally on behalf of an investment company that is registered with the Commission pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 and that controls, is controlled by or is under common control, with the member (an “investment company firm”), or (B) a proprietary trading firm. Therefore,
Additionally, Nasdaq Rule 1032(c) currently provides that each person associated with a member who is included within the definition of a representative may register with Nasdaq as a Proprietary Trader if (A) his activities in the investment banking or securities business are limited solely to proprietary trading, (B) he passes an appropriate qualification examination (the Series 56) and (C) he is an associated person of a proprietary trading firm.
In consultation with FINRA and other exchanges, and in order to harmonize for individuals engaged in trading activities, the Exchange is now proposing to retire the Proprietary Trader registration category. Accordingly, it is deleting all rule text in section (c) of Rule 1032 and replacing it with the word “Reserved”. Similarly, the Exchange is retiring the Equity Trader registration category in Rule 1032(f) and revising that rule to adopt a new Securities Trader registration category.
Under Rule 1032(f), as revised, each person associated with a member who is included within the definition of a representative will be required to register as a Securities Trader if engaged in Nasdaq equities trading or foreign currency options trading on Nasdaq other than any person associated with an investment company firm. There is no exclusion from the new Securities Trader registration requirement for representatives of proprietary trading firms. Therefore, representatives who previously would have been required to register as Equity Traders, as well as those who previously qualified for Proprietary Trader registration, will be required to register as Securities Traders. In order to register as a Securities Trader, an applicant would be required to pass the new Securities Trader qualification examination (Series 57). However, unlike today's Equity Trader registrants, an applicant would be able to register as a Securities Trader without first registering as a General Securities Representative or a Limited Representative—Corporate Securities.
A person registered as an Equity Trader or a Proprietary Trader in the Central Registration Depository (CRD®) system on the effective date of the proposed rule change will be grandfathered as a Securities Trader without having to take any additional examinations and without having to take any other actions. In addition, individuals who were registered as an Equity Trader or a Proprietary Trader in the CRD system prior to the effective date of the proposed rule change will be eligible to register as Securities Traders without having to take any additional examinations, provided that no more than two years have passed between the date they were last registered as a representative and the date they register as a Securities Trader.
Persons registered in the new category would be subject to the continuing education requirements of Rule 1120. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1120(a) by removing the option for Series 56 registered persons to participate in the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program in order to satisfy the Regulatory Element. The S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program is being phased out along with the Series 56 Proprietary Trader qualification examination. As a result, effective January 4, 2016, the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program for Series 56 registered persons will cease to exist. In place of the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program for Series 56 registered persons, the Exchange proposes that Series 57 registered persons be required to take the S101 General Program for Series 7 and all other registered persons.
Currently, under NASDAQ Rule 1022(a), each person associated with a member who is included within the definition of “principal”
Like the Proprietary Trader category discussed above, the Proprietary Trader Principal registration category is being retired. The Exchange is therefore deleting Rule 1022(h). The Exchange is establishing a Securities Trader Principal category in new Rule 1022(a)(5). Nasdaq has been working with other exchanges and FINRA to develop this new principal registration
A person registered as a General Securities Principal and an Equity Trader or as a Proprietary Trader Principal in the CRD system on the effective date of the proposed rule change will be eligible to register as a Securities Trader Principal without having to take any additional examinations. An individual who was registered as a General Securities Principal and an Equity Trader, or as a Proprietary Trader Principal in the CRD system prior to the effective date of the proposed rule change will also be eligible to register as a Securities Trader Principal without having to take any additional examinations, provided that no more than two years have passed between the date they [sic] were last registered as a principal and the date they [sic] register as a Securities Trader Principal. Members, however, will be required to affirmatively register persons transitioning to the proposed registration category as Securities Trader Principals on or after the effective date of the proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
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. Implementation of the proposed changes to Nasdaq's registration rules in coordination with the FINRA Amendments does not present any competitive issues, but rather is designed to provide less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for members and enhance the ability of the Exchange to fairly and efficiently regulate members, which will further enhance competition. Additionally, the proposed rule change should not affect intramarket competition because all similarly situated representatives and principals will be required to complete the same qualification examinations and maintain the same registrations.
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. 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.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
All submissions should refer to File Number
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to make certain representations relating to the NYSE Best Quote & Trades (NYSE BQT) data feed. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The NYSE Best Quotes and Trades (“NYSE BQT”) data feed, a market data product offered by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), provides best bid and offer (“BBO”) and last sale information for the Exchange and its affiliates, NYSE and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”).
While NYSE Arca, NYSE and NYSE MKT are the exclusive distributors of their BBO and Trades feeds from which the data elements are taken to create the NYSE BQT data feed, the NYSE represented that it would not have any unfair advantage over competing vendors with respect to obtaining data from NYSE, NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT.
The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations or others would have in complying with the proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
NYSE Arca is the source of its own market data, including the NYSE Arca market data that the NYSE includes in the NYSE BQT data feed. NYSE Arca represents that it will continue to make available the individual underlying NYSE Arca market data products, NYSE Arca Trades and NYSE Arca BBO, that are included in NYSE BQT, and that the source of the NYSE Arca market data the NYSE uses to create the NYSE BQT data feed is the same as the source available to other vendors. Thus, a vendor creating a product to compete with NYSE BQT could also obtain the six underlying data feeds in NYSE BQT and perform a similar aggregation and consolidation function to create the same data product with the same latency.
The NYSE BQT data feed helps to protect a free and open market by providing vendors and subscribers with additional choices in receiving this type of market data, thus promoting competition and innovation.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
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 proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to the Exchange's options platform effective immediately, in order to: (i) Make certain changes, including the adoption of routing fees, in connection with the launch of the options exchange operated by the Exchange's affiliate EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX Options”); and (ii) to adopt and modify certain pricing tiers offered by the Exchange.
At the outset, the Exchange proposes to re-brand its options platform as BZX Options, rather than BATS Options, as it intends to use BATS Options to describe EDGX Options and BZX Options collectively. In connection with this change the Exchange proposes to: (i) Re-title the fee schedule; (ii) modify the description of fee code OO, which refers to the Exchange's opening process; (iii) modify references in footnote 5, which applies to the Quoting Incentive Program (“QIP”); (iv) modify references in the Unicast Access section under BATS Connect fees; and (v) modify references in the Options Regulatory Fee section. In each instance the Exchange proposes to refer to BZX Options. With respect to the Unicast Access section, the Exchange also proposes to add reference to EDGX Options in the list of Exchange affiliates to which such fees do not apply.
As noted previously, the Exchange's current approach to routing fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain sub-categories of fees that approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (
The Exchange proposes to adopt fee codes RC and RD, which will apply to Customer
Currently, the Exchange offers a standard rebate of $0.25 per contract for Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities that add liquidity to the Exchange, which apply to fee code PY. As set forth in footnote 1 of the fee schedule, the Exchange also offers tiered pricing pursuant to which Members can receive higher rebates up to $0.50 if they qualify pursuant to various criteria, including volume levels on BZX Options and, with respect to the Exchange's Cross-Asset Add Tiers, volume levels on BZX Options as well as volume on the Exchange's equity trading platform (“BZX Equities”). The Exchange proposes to add four new tiers to incentivize Members to add additional volume on the Exchange, particularly in Customer orders. The Exchange also proposes to delete one of the Cross-Asset Add Tiers, as set forth below.
The Exchange's current Customer Add Volume Tiers 1 through 3 require certain levels of ADV
• Customer Add Volume Tier 4 would provide a Customer order add rebate of $0.50 per contract for any Member that has an ADAV equal to or greater than 0.85% of average TCV.
• Customer Add Volume Tier 5 would provide a Customer order add rebate of $0.52 per contract for any Member that has an ADAV in Customer orders equal to or greater than 0.80% of average TCV and an ADAV in Market Maker
• Customer Add Volume Tier 6 would provide a Customer order add rebate of $0.53 per contract for any Member that has an ADAV in Customer orders equal to or greater than 1.80% of average TCV.
Similar to other pricing where the Exchange seeks to incentivize growth by providing tiered pricing based on a Member's participation increase over time, the Exchange also proposes to adopt a new Customer Step-Up Volume Tier. Pursuant to the Customer Step-Up Volume Tier a Member would receive a Customer order add rebate of $0.53 per contract to the extent the Member has an Options Step-Up Add TCV
In addition to the proposed new tiers described above, the Exchange proposes to eliminate Customer Cross-Asset Add Tier 2, and in turn, to re-number current Customer Cross-Asset Add Tier 1 as Customer Cross-Asset Add Tier.
The Exchange currently offers enhanced rebates under the: (i) Firm,
• Under footnote 2, a rebate of $0.43 per contract for Firm, BD, and JBO orders that add liquidity in Penny Pilot Securities, which yield fee code PF.
• Under footnote 6, a rebate of $0.43 per contract for Market Maker and NBMM orders that add liquidity in Penny Pilot Securities, which yield fee code PM.
• Under footnote 8, a rebate of $0.67 per contract for Firm, BD, and JBO orders that add liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities, which yield fee code NF.
Also, the Exchange proposes to modify the criteria for NBBO Setter Tier 3 to align with the step-up criteria proposed above. Pursuant to NBBO Setter Tier 3, qualifying Members earn an additional rebate per contract of $0.04 on Non-Customer orders that add liquidity. Currently, to qualify for this tier a Member must: (i) Have an Options Step-Up Add TCV from September 2014 baseline equal to or greater than 0.30%; (ii) have an ADV equal to or greater than 0.40% of average TCV; and (iii) have an order that establishes a new NBBO. The Exchange proposes to modify the first and second criteria for this tier to align with the step-up criteria for the other Non-Customer Add Volume Tiers described above. Specifically, a Member must have: (i) An Options Step-up Add TCV in Non-Customer orders from March 2015 baseline equal to or greater than 0.15%; and (ii) an ADAV in NBMM, Firm, BD, and JBO orders equal to or greater than 0.30% of average TCV. The additional rebate per contract will still only apply to an order that establishes a new NBBO.
In addition to the changes described above, the Exchange proposes to modify footnote 8 to explicitly state that the tiered rebates under such footnote are applicable to fee code NF. Although fee code NF in the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table properly refers to footnote 8, all other footnotes on the fee schedule also cross-reference back to applicable fee codes at the beginning of the footnote. The Exchange proposes to make this addition to footnote 8 to
The Exchange currently offers a total of six Non-Customer Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers that provide discounted fees for Non-Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities that remove liquidity from BZX Options under fee code PP. The Exchange proposes various changes to these tiers, including reducing the total number to three tiers and modifying these remaining tiers, as set forth below.
• The Exchange proposes to delete Non-Customer Volume Tiers 2 and 3 as well as the Non-Customer Step-Up Take Volume Tier.
• The Exchange currently charges $0.49 per contract for Members that qualify for Non-Customer Volume Tier 1, which requires that a Member has an ADV equal to or greater than 1.00% of average TCV. The Exchange proposes increasing the requirement necessary to qualify for Non-Customer Volume Tier 1 to require that a Member has an ADV equal to or greater than 1.50% of average TCV.
• The Exchange currently charges $0.45 per contract for Members that qualify for Non-Customer Volume Tier 4, which requires that a Member has an ADAV in Customer orders equal to or greater than 0.80% of average TCV. The Exchange proposes to maintain this requirement but also to add a requirement that a Member has an ADAV in Market Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.40% of average TCV. The Exchange also proposes to increase the fee per contract for Members that qualify for this tier to $0.47 per contract. In connection with the deleted tiers noted above, the Exchange proposes to rename current Non-Customer Take Volume Tier 4 as Non-Customer Take Volume Tier 2.
• The Exchange currently charges $0.43 per contract for Members that qualify for Non-Customer Volume Tier 5, which requires that a Member has an ADAV in Customer orders equal to or greater than 2.00% of average TCV. The Exchange proposes to decrease this requirement to require that a Member has an ADAV in Customer orders equal to or greater than 1.80% of average TCV. The Exchange also proposes to increase the fee per contract for Members that qualify for this tier to $0.46 per contract. In connection with the deleted tiers noted above, the Exchange proposes to rename current Non-Customer Take Volume Tier 5 as Non-Customer Take Volume Tier 3.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the Standard Rates table, which summarizes the range of fees at the beginning of the fee schedule, in order to reflect the changes proposed above. The Exchange also proposes to adopt a definition of Non-Customer order, which would apply to any transaction that is not a Customer order. Though the Exchange believes that this has always been understood as the meaning is clear from the term itself, the Exchange believes that adding the explicit definition will promote consistency with other defined terms and avoid potential confusion. In addition, the Exchange proposes to consistently capitalize the term Non-Customer throughout the fee schedule.
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee Schedule effective immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change 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 of the Act.
As explained above, the Exchange generally attempts to approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges, including other applicable costs to the Exchange for routing. The Exchange believes that a pricing model based on approximate Routing Costs is a reasonable, fair and equitable approach to pricing. Specifically, the Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt routing fees to EDGX Options is fair, equitable and reasonable because the fees are generally an approximation of the anticipated cost to the Exchange for routing orders to EDGX Options. The Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is voluntary. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee structure for orders routed to and executed at EDGX Options is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies equally to all Members.
Volume-based rebates and fees such as the ones currently maintained on BZX Options have been widely adopted by equities and options exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes.
As explained above, the Exchange is proposing various modifications to the Exchange's tiered pricing structure that are intended to contribute to the continued growth of the Exchange. The proposed new Customer Penny Pilot Add Tiers are intended to incentivize Members to send additional volume, particularly Customer orders, to the Exchange. Similarly, the proposed new step-up tiers for the Non-Customer Add Volume Tiers, as well as the alignment of the criteria for NBBO Setter Tier 3 with such tiers, is intended to incentivize Members to send additional orders, particularly Non-Customer orders, to the Exchange. Finally, the elimination of Customer Cross-Asset Add Tier 2 and the proposed changes to the Non-Customer Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers, including the proposed deletion of three tiers and the proposed increase to fees, are intended to allow the Exchange to continue to expand pricing incentives to promote the growth of the Exchange. The changes are also intended to incentivize additional volume by increasing qualifying criteria for the existing tiers, requiring more participation by Members to continue to receive reduced rates pursuant to such tiers.
The Exchange believes that these changes are reasonable, fair and equitable and non-discriminatory, for the reasons set forth with respect to volume-based pricing generally and because such changes will either incentivize participants to further contribute to market quality on the Exchange or will allow the Exchange to earn additional revenue that can be used to offset the addition of new pricing incentives. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees and rebates remain consistent with pricing previously offered by the Exchange as well as competitors of the Exchange and do not represent a significant departure
The Exchange believes that the additional clarifying changes and corrections proposed in this filing are reasonable, fair and equitable and non-discriminatory because each is intended to improve the understandability of the Exchange's fee schedule and to avoid confusion.
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 Exchange does not believe that any of the proposed changes to the Exchange's tiered pricing structure burden competition, but instead, that they enhance competition as they are intended to increase the competitiveness of BZX Options by offering new pricing incentives or modifying and eliminating pricing incentives in order to provide such incentives. Also, the Exchange believes that the increase to certain thresholds necessary to meet tiers offered by the Exchange contributes to rather than burdens competition, as such changes are intended to incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange. Similarly, the introduction of new tiers is intended to provide incentives to Members to encourage them to enter orders to BZX Options, and thus is again intended to enhance competition.
Similarly, the Exchange does not believe that its proposed pricing for routing to EDGX Options burdens competition, as such rates are intended to approximate the cost of routing to EDGX Options. As stated above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive or providers of routing services if they deem routing fee levels to be excessive.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: 100 Federal St., 31st Floor, Boston, MA 02110.
Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6812 or David P. Bartels, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete 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
1. TCRD is an externally managed, non-diversified closed-end management investment company incorporated in Delaware that has elected to be regulated as a business development company (“BDC”) under Section 54(a) of the Act.
2. THL Credit Fund III is a private fund organized in Delaware that has not yet formally commenced principal operations. THL Credit Fund III's investment objective is to generate current income consistent with capital preservation by investing primarily in first lien and second lien secured loans. THL Credit Fund III is not registered under the Act in reliance on the exclusion from the definition of “investment company” in section 3(c)(7) of the Act.
3. The BDC Adviser is a Delaware limited liability company and is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. The BDC Adviser serves as the investment adviser to TCRD and will serve as investment adviser to THL Credit Fund III. The Subsidiary Adviser is a Delaware limited liability company that is registered under the Advisers Act.
4. Applicants seek an order (“Order”) to permit one or more Regulated Funds
5. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time, form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.
6. When considering Potential Co-Investment Transactions for a Regulated Fund, the applicable Adviser will consider only the Objectives and Strategies, investment policies, investment positions, Available Capital (defined below),
7. Other than pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as provided in conditions 7 and 8, and after making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the Adviser will present each Potential Co-Investment Transaction and the proposed allocation to the directors of the Board eligible to vote under section 57(o) of the Act (“Eligible Directors”), and the “required majority,” as defined in section 57(o) of the Act (“Required Majority”)
8. With respect to the pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, a Regulated Fund may participate in a pro rata disposition or Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if, among other things: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition or Follow-On Investment, as the case may be; and (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved that Regulated Fund's participation in pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund. If the Board does not so approve, any such disposition or Follow-On Investment will be submitted to the Regulated Fund's Eligible Directors. The Board of any Regulated Fund may at any time rescind, suspend or qualify its approval of pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments with the result that all dispositions and/or Follow-On Investments must be submitted to the Eligible Directors.
9. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will have a financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction, other than indirectly through share ownership in one of the Regulated Funds.
10. If an Adviser or its principals, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser or its principals, and any Affiliated Fund (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25 per cent of the outstanding voting shares of a Regulated Fund, then the Holders will vote such shares as directed by an independent third party (such as the trustee of a voting trust or a proxy adviser) when voting on (1) the election of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities, as defined in section 2(a)(42) of the Act. Applicants believe that this condition will ensure that the Non-Interested Directors will act independently in evaluating the Co-Investment Program, because the ability of the Adviser or its principals to influence the Non-Interested Directors by a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Non-Interested Directors can be removed will be limited significantly. The Non-Interested Directors shall evaluate and approve any such voting trust or proxy adviser, taking into account its qualifications, reputation for independence, cost to the shareholders, and other factors that they deem relevant.
1. Section 57(a)(4) of the Act prohibits certain affiliated persons of a BDC from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company controlled by a BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by the Commission. Under section 57(b)(2) of the Act, any person who is directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a BDC is subject to section 57(a)(4). Applicants submit that each of the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds could be deemed to be a person related to each Regulated Fund in a manner described by section 57(b) by virtue of being under common control. Section 57(i) of the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1 also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
2. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit affiliated persons of a registered investment
3. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief, the Regulated Funds would be, in some circumstances, limited in their ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment opportunities. Applicants believe that the proposed terms and conditions will ensure that the Co-Investment Transactions are consistent with the protection of each Regulated Fund's shareholders and with the purposes intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each time an Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment Transaction for an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund that falls within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies, the Regulated Fund's Adviser will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for such Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2. (a) If the Adviser deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, it will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser to be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's Available Capital, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each. The applicable Adviser will provide the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund with information concerning each participating party's Available Capital to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these allocation procedures.
(c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the applicable Adviser will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the amount proposed to be invested by each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund) to the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will co-invest with one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) The terms of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Fund and its shareholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Fund or its shareholders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
(A) The interests of the shareholders of the Regulated Fund; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by any other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds; provided that, if any other Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors or the right to have a board observer or any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company, such event shall not be interpreted to prohibit the Required Majority from reaching the conclusions required by this condition (2)(c)(iii), if:
(A) The Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any;
(B) the applicable Adviser agrees to, and does, provide periodic reports to the Regulated Fund's Board with respect to the actions of such director or the information received by such board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and
(C) any fees or other compensation that any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund or any affiliated person of any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund receives in connection with the right of an Affiliated Fund or a Regulated Fund to nominate a director or appoint a board observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among the participating Affiliated Funds (who each may, in turn, share its portion with its affiliated persons) and the participating Regulated Funds in accordance with the amount of each party's investment; and
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not benefit the Advisers, the Affiliated Funds or the other Regulated Funds or any affiliated person of any of them (other than the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction), except (A) to the extent permitted by condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted by Section 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable, (C) indirectly, as a result of an interest in the securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction, or (D) in the case of fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).
3. Each Regulated Fund has the right to decline to participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the amount proposed.
4. The applicable Adviser will present to the Board of each Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why the investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Fund. All information presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
5. Except for Follow-On Investments made in accordance with condition 8,
6. A Regulated Fund will not participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of securities to be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights will be the same for each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund. The grant to an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund, of the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions 2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.
7. (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund elects to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by each Regulated Fund in the disposition.
(b) Each Regulated Fund will have the right to participate in such disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as those applicable to the participating Affiliated Funds and Regulated Funds.
(c) A Regulated Fund may participate in such disposition without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition; (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in such dispositions on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and (iii) the Board of the Regulated Fund is provided on a quarterly basis with a list of all dispositions made in accordance with this condition. In all other cases, the Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such disposition solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(d) Each Affiliated Fund and each Regulated Fund will bear its own expenses in connection with any such disposition.
8. (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund desires to make a Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed Follow-On Investment, by each Regulated Fund.
(b) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in Follow-On Investments on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application). In all other cases, the Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such Follow-On Investment solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:
(i) The amount of the opportunity is not based on the Regulated Funds' and the Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser to be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Follow-On Investment, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the opportunity, then the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's Available Capital, up to the maximum amount proposed to be invested by each.
(d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all purposes and subject to the other conditions set forth in the application.
9. The Non-Interested Directors of each Regulated Fund will be provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Non-Interested Directors may determine whether all investments made during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Non-Interested Directors will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for the Regulated Fund of participating in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions.
10. Each Regulated Fund will maintain the records required by Section 57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the Regulated Funds were a BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were approved by the Required Majority under Section 57(f) of the Act.
11. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will also be a director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise an “affiliated person” (as defined in the Act) of an Affiliated Fund.
12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction (including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any such securities registered for sale under the Securities Act) will, to the extent not payable by the Advisers under their respective investment advisory agreements with Affiliated Funds and the Regulated Funds, be shared by the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds in proportion to the relative amounts of the securities held or to be acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
13. Any transaction fee (including break-up or commitment fees but excluding broker's fees contemplated by Section 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable), received in connection with a Co-Investment Transaction will be distributed to the participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds on a pro rata basis based on the amounts they invested or committed, as the case may be, in such Co-Investment Transaction. If any transaction fee is to be held by an Adviser pending consummation of the transaction, the fee will be deposited into an account maintained by such Adviser at a bank or
14. If the Holders own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the shares of a Regulated Fund, then the Holders will vote such shares as directed by an independent third party (such as the trustee of a voting trust or a proxy adviser) when voting on (1) the election of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) any matters requiring approval by the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities, as defined in section 2(a)(42) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act”)
This advance notice is filed by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in connection with a proposed change that would modify OCC's margin methodology by incorporating variations in implied volatility for “shorter tenor” options within the System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (“STANS”).
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A) and (B) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed change and none have been received.
The proposed change would modify OCC's margin methodology by more broadly incorporating variations in implied volatility within STANS. As explained below, OCC believes that expanding the use of variations in implied volatility within STANS for substantially all
STANS is OCC's proprietary risk management system that calculates Clearing Members' margin requirements in accordance with OCC's Rules.
The STANS margin requirement for an account is composed of two primary components:
Including variations in implied volatility within STANS is intended to ensure that the anticipated cost of liquidating each Shorter Tenor Option position in an account recognizes the possibility that implied volatility could change during the two business day liquidation time horizon in STANS and lead to corresponding changes in the market prices of the options. Generally speaking, the implied volatility of an option is a measure of the expected future volatility of the value of the option's annualized standard deviation of the price of the underlying security, index, or future at exercise, which is reflected in the current option premium in the market. The volatility is “implied” from the premium for an option
OCC is proposing certain modifications to STANS to more broadly incorporate variations in implied volatility for Shorter Tenor Options. Consistent with its approach for Longer Tenor Options, OCC would model a volatility surface
OCC partnered with an experienced vendor in this area to study implied volatility surfaces and to use back-testing of OCC's margin requirements to build a model that would be appropriately sophisticated and operate conservatively to minimize margin exceedances. The back-testing results support that, over a look-back period from January 2008 to May 2013,
Under OCC's model for Shorter Tenor Options, the volatility surfaces would be defined using tenors of one month, three months, and one year with absolute deltas, in each case, of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75. This results in the nine implied volatility pivot points. Given that premiums of deep-in-the-money options (those with absolute deltas closer to 1.0) and deep-out-of-the-money options (those with absolute deltas closer to 0) are insensitive to changes in implied volatility, in each case notwithstanding increases or decreases in implied volatility over the two business day liquidation time horizon, those higher and lower absolute deltas have not been selected as pivot points. OCC believes that it is appropriate to focus on pivot points representing at- and near-the-money options because prices for those options are more sensitive to variations in implied volatility over the liquidation time horizon of two business days. Specifically, for SPX index options, four factors explain 99% variance of implied volatility movements: (i) A parallel shift of the entire surface, (ii) a slope or skewness with respect to Delta, (iii) a slope with respect to time to maturity; and, (iv) a convexity with respect to the time to maturity. The nine correlated pivot points, arranged by delta and tenor, give OCC the flexibility to capture these factors.
In the proposed approach to computing margin for Shorter Tenor Options under STANS, OCC would first use its econometric models to simulate implied volatility changes at the nine pivot points that would correspond to
OCC believes that the proposed change would enhance OCC's ability to ensure that in determining margin requirements STANS appropriately takes into account normal market conditions that OCC may encounter in the event that, pursuant to OCC Rule 1102, it suspends a defaulted Clearing Member and liquidates its accounts.
OCC estimates that Clearing Member accounts generally would experience increased margin requirements as compared to those calculated for the same options positions in an account today. OCC estimates the proposed change would most significantly affect customer accounts and least significantly affect firm accounts, with the effect on Market Maker accounts falling in between.
OCC expects customer accounts to experience the largest margin increases because positions considered under STANS for customer accounts typically consist of more short than long options positions, and therefore reflect a greater magnitude of direction risk than other account types. Positions considered under STANS for customer accounts typically consist of more short than long options positions because, to facilitate Clearing Members' compliance with Commission requirements for the protection of certain customer property under Rule 15c3-3(b),
While overall OCC expects an increase in aggregate margins by about $1.5 billion (9% of expected shortfall and stress-test add-on), OCC does anticipate a decrease in margins in certain clearing member accounts' requirements. OCC anticipates that such a decrease would occur in accounts with underlying exposure and implied volatility exposure in the same direction, such as concentrated call positions, due to the negative correlation typically observed between these two factors. Over the back-testing period, about 28% of the observations for accounts on the days studied had lower margins under the proposed methodology and the average reduction was about 2.7%. Parallel results will be made available to the membership in the weeks ahead of implementation.
To help Clearing Members prepare for the proposed change, OCC has provided Clearing Members with an Information Memo explaining the proposal, including the planned timeline for its implementation,
OCC believes that the proposed change regarding the incorporation of variations in implied volatility within STANS is consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act
OCC believes that the proposed change would reduce OCC's overall level of risk because the proposed change makes it less likely that the amount of margin OCC collects from Clearing Members Clearing Fund would be insufficient should OCC need to use such margin in connection with a Clearing Member default. As described above, OCC is proposing certain modifications to STANS to more broadly incorporate variations in implied volatility for Shorter Tenor Options. Such modifications would
The designated clearing agency may implement this change if it has not received an objection to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that the Commission receives the notice of proposed change, or (ii) the date the Commission receives any further information it requests for consideration of the notice. The designated clearing agency shall not implement this change if the Commission has an objection.
The Commission may, during the 60-day review period, extend the review period for an additional 60 days for proposed changes that raise novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the designated clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. The designated clearing agency may implement a change in less than 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice of proposed change by the Commission, or the date the Commission receives any further information it requested, if the Commission notifies the designated clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes the designated clearing agency to implement the change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
The designated clearing agency shall post notice on its Web site of proposed changes that are implemented.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing. 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.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal registration categories and to retire the Proprietary Trader and Proprietary Trader Principal registration categories. Phlx will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Trader Alert. The Exchange is also amending its rules to establish the Series 57 examination as the appropriate qualification examination for Securities Traders and deleting the rule referring to the S501 continuing education program currently applicable to Proprietary Traders.
The text of the proposed rulechange is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to replace the Proprietary Trader registration category and Proprietary Trader qualification examination (Series 56) with the Securities Trader Registration Category and the Securities Trader qualification examination (Series 57) in its registration rules relating to securities trading activity. It is also proposing to replace the Proprietary Trader Principal registration category with the Securities Trader Principal registration category. This filing is, in all material respects, based upon SR-FINRA-2015-017, which was recently approved by the Commission.
Currently, under Exchange Rule 613, except members whose activities are limited to the Exchange's options trading floor and who are registered pursuant to Rule 620(a)
In 2012, the Exchange adopted the Proprietary Trader registration category as an alternative to the General Securities Representative registration category.
The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 613(f) by deleting the Proprietary Trader registration category and replacing it with a new requirement that each person associated with a member who is included within the definition of a representative as defined in Rule 1(cc) must register with the Exchange as a Securities Trader if, with respect to transactions in equity, preferred or convertible debt securities, or foreign currency options on the Exchange, such person is engaged in proprietary trading, the execution of transactions on an agency basis, or the direct supervision of such activities, other than any person associated with a member whose trading activities are conducted principally on behalf of an investment company that is registered with the Commission pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 and that controls, is controlled by or is under common control, with the member (an “investment company firm”). The proposed language requires applicants to pass an appropriate Qualification Examination for Securities Trader (the Series 57 examination) before registering in the new Securities Trader category. It also provides that a person registered as a Securities Trader shall not be qualified to function in any other registration category, unless he or she is also qualified and registered in such other registration category.
A reference to paragraph (f) is being added to Rule 613(a) to make clear that representatives who are required to register shall register in the category of registration appropriate to the function to be performed as specified in paragraph (e) or (f). Additionally, the Exchange is deleting from Rule 613(a) the general requirement that before a representative's registration may become effective, they [sic] shall pass the Series 7 examination. The Series 7 requirement continues to apply to candidates for General Securities Representative registration, however, pursuant to Rule 613(e). Proposed paragraph (f) provides that candidates for Securities Trader registration must pass the Series 57 examination. They will not, however, be required to pass the Series 7 in order to register as Securities Traders.
A person registered as a Proprietary Trader in the Central Registration Depository (CRD®) system on the effective date of the proposed rule change will be grandfathered as a Securities Trader without having to take any additional examinations and without having to take any other actions. In addition, individuals who were registered as a Proprietary Trader in the CRD system prior to the effective date of the proposed rule change will be eligible to register as Securities Traders without having to take any additional examinations, provided that no more than two years have passed between the date they were last registered as a
Persons registered in the new category would be subject to the continuing education requirements of Rule 640. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 640 by removing the option for Series 56 registered persons to participate in the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program in order to satisfy the Regulatory Element. The S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program is being phased out along with the Series 56 Proprietary Trader qualification examination. As a result, effective January 4, 2016, the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program for Series 56 registered persons will cease to exist. In place of the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program for Series 56 registered persons, the Exchange proposes that Series 57 registered persons be permitted to enroll in the S101 General Program for Series 7 and all other registered persons.
Currently, under Rule 612(a), each member and person associated with a member organization to which Rule 611
In consultation with FINRA and other exchanges, the Exchange is now proposing to retire the Proprietary Trader Principal category. Accordingly, it is deleting Rule 612(e) in its entirety. In its place, the Exchange is adopting proposed Rule 612(e), which adds a new Securities Trader Principal registration category. Under the proposed rule each person associated with a member who is included within the definition of principal in Rule 611(b) and who will have supervisory responsibility over the securities trading activities described in Rule 613(f) must become qualified and registered as a Securities Trader Principal. The proposed rule change should allow Phlx to more easily track principals with supervisory responsibility over securities trading activities.
To qualify for registration as a Securities Trader Principal, a candidate would first be required to qualify and register as a Securities Trader under Rule 613(f) and pass the General Securities Principal qualification examination. A person who is qualified and registered as a Securities Trader Principal under the proposed rule would only have supervisory responsibility over the securities trading activities specified in Rule 613(f), unless such person were separately qualified and registered in another appropriate principal registration category, such as the General Securities Principal registration category. Finally, a registered General Securities Principal would not be qualified to supervise the securities trading activities described in Rule 613(f), unless such person also qualified and registered as a Securities Trader under Rule 613(f) by passing the Securities Trader qualification examination and registering as a Securities Trader Principal.
A person registered as a Proprietary Trader Principal or as a Limited Principal-Registered Options Principal (“Limited Options Principal”)
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
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. Implementation of the proposed changes to Phlx's registration rules in coordination with the FINRA Amendments does not present any competitive issues, but rather is designed to provide less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for members and enhance the ability of the Exchange to fairly and efficiently regulate members, which will further enhance competition. Additionally, the proposed rule change should not affect intramarket competition because all similarly situated representatives and principals will be required to complete the same qualification examinations and maintain the same registrations. Finally, the proposed rule change does not impose any additional examination burdens on persons who are already registered. There is no obligation to take the proposed Series 57 examination in order to continue in their present duties, so the proposed rule change is not expected to disadvantage current registered persons relative to new entrants in this regard.
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. 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.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-92 and should be submitted on or before December 8, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 11-K (17 CFR 249.311) is the annual report designed for use by employee stock purchase, savings and similar plans to comply with the reporting requirements under Section 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)). Section 15(d) establishes a periodic reporting obligation for every issuer of securities registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”)(15 U.S.C. 77a
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 control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
60-DAY notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reduce the approved collection of information for 8(a) Business Development (BD) Program applicants. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C Chapter 35 required federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before January 19, 2016.
Send all comments to Melinda Edwards (
Melinda Edwards, Program Analyst, Office of Business Development,
The 8(a) BD Program is designed to enhance the business development of small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals whose ability to compete in the free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities as compared to others in the same or similar line of business. Historically, over 2,000 entrepreneurs apply for 8(a) BD Program certification each year. Each year approximately 1,500 applications are returned without processing or withdrawn because they are incomplete. In an effort to increase the 8(a) BD Program's accessibility to socially and economically disadvantaged small business owners, SBA seeks to reduce the information collection and forms. The reduced collection of information is based directly on the 8(a) Program eligibility criteria in 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 124. SBA believes this initiative will reduce the administrative paperwork burden for 8(a) applicants while maintaining the integrity of the 8(a) BD Program.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the eliminated/reduced collection of information was necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to further minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a new computer matching program that will be implemented with OCSE.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces a new computer matching program that we are currently will conduct with OCSE.
We will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The matching program will be effective as indicated below.
Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to (410) 966-0869 or writing to the Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, 617 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at this address.
The Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, as shown above.
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
(4) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying a person's benefits or payments.
We have taken action to ensure that all of our computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
SSA and OCSE.
The purpose of this matching program is to govern a matching program between the OCSE and us. The agreement covers the Quarterly Wage and Unemployment Insurance batch match for Title II Disability Insurance (DI). This agreement also governs the use, treatment, and safeguarding of the information exchanged. OCSE is the “source agency” and we are the “recipient agency,” as defined by the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(9) and (11).
We will use the quarterly wage and unemployment insurance information from OCSE to establish or verify eligibility, continuing entitlement, or payment amounts, or all of the above, of individuals under the DI program.
The legal authority for disclosures under this agreement are: (1) 453(j)(4) of the Social Security Act (Act) which provides that OCSE shall provide our Commissioner with all information in the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(4); and (2) 224(h)(1) of the Act provides that the head of any Federal agency shall provide information within its possession as our Commissioner may require for purposes of making a timely determination of the amount of the reduction, if any, required by section 224 in benefits payable under Title II of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 424a(h). Disclosures under this agreement shall be made in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3), and in compliance with the matching procedures in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o), (p), and (r).
OCSE will match our information in the MBR and CDR-CDD against the quarterly wage and unemployment insurance information furnished by state and federal agencies maintained in its SOR “OCSE National Directory of New Hires” (NDNH), No. 09-80-0381, established by publication in the
The effective date of this matching program is November 1, 2015; provided that the following notice periods have lapsed: 30 days after publication of this notice in the
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions and extensions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-
Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, 3100 West High Rise, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235. Fax: 410-966-2830. Email address:
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than January 19, 2016. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
1. Certificate of Responsibility for Welfare and Care of Child Not in Applicant's Custody—20 CFR 404.330, 404.339-404.341 and 404.348-404.349—0960-0019. Under the provisions of the Social Security Act (Act), non-custodial parents who are filing for spouse, mother, or father Social Security benefits based on having the child of a number holder or worker in their care, must meet the in-care requirements the Act discusses. The in-care provision requires claimants to have an entitled child under age 16 or disabled in their care. SSA uses Form SSA-781, Certificate of Responsibility for Welfare and Care of Child in Applicant's Custody, to determine if claimants meet the requirement. The respondents are applicants for spouse, mother's or father's Social Security benefits.
2. Request for Change in Time/Place of Disability Hearing—20 CFR 404.914(c)(2) and 416.1414(c)(2)—0960-0348. At the request of the claimants or their representative, SSA schedules evidentiary hearings at the reconsideration level for claimants of Title II benefits or Title XVI payments when we deny their claims for disability. When claimants or their representatives find they are unable to attend the scheduled hearing, they complete Form SSA-769 to request a change in time or place of the hearing. SSA uses the information as a basis for granting or denying requests for changes and for rescheduling disability hearings. Respondents are claimants or their representatives who wish to request a change in the time or place of their hearing.
3. Notice Regarding Substitution of Party Upon Death of Claimant—Reconsideration of Disability Cessation—20 CFR 404.907-404.921 and 416.1407-416.1421—0960-0351. When a claimant dies before we make a determination on that person's request for reconsideration of a disability cessation, SSA seeks a qualified substitute party to pursue the appeal. If SSA locates a qualified substitute party, the agency uses Form SSA-770 to collect information about whether to pursue or withdraw the reconsideration request. We use this information as the basis for the decision to continue or discontinue with the appeals process. Respondents are substitute applicants who are pursuing a reconsideration request for a deceased claimant.
4. Beneficiary Interview and Auditor's Observations Form—0960-0630. SSA's Office of the Inspector General collects information from Form SSA-322, the Beneficiary Interview and Auditor's Observation form, to interview beneficiaries or their payees to determine whether they are complying with their duties and responsibilities. The respondents are randomly selected Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients and Social Security beneficiaries who have representative payees.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than December 17, 2015. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
1. Authorization for the Social Security Administration to Obtain Account Records from a Financial Institution—20 CFR 416.200 and 416.203—0960-0293. SSA collects and verifies financial information from individuals applying for SSI payments to determine if the applicant meets the SSI resource eligibility requirements. If the SSI claimants provide incomplete, unavailable, or seemingly altered records, SSA contacts their financial institutions to verify the existence, ownership, and value of accounts owned. Financial institutions require individuals to sign Form SSA-4641-F4, or complete one of SSA's electronic applications, e4641 or the Access to Financial Institutions (AFI) screens, to authorize them to disclose records to SSA. The respondents are SSI applicants, recipients, and their deemors.
2. Surveys in Accordance with E.O. 12862 for the Social Security Administration—0960-0526. Under the auspices of Executive Order 12862, Setting Customer Service Standards, SSA conducts multiple customer satisfaction surveys each year. These voluntary customer satisfaction assessments include paper, Internet, and telephone surveys; mailed questionnaires; and customer comment cards. The purpose of these questionnaires is to assess customer satisfaction with the timeliness, appropriateness, access, and overall quality of existing SSA services and proposed modifications or new versions of services. The respondents are recipients of SSA services (including most members of the public), professionals, and individuals who work on behalf of SSA beneficiaries.
3. The Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program—20 CFR 411—0960-0644. SSA's Ticket to Work (TTW) Program transitions Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and SSI recipients toward independence by allowing them to receive Social Security payments while maintaining employment under the auspices of the program. SSA uses service providers, called Employment Networks (ENs), to supervise participant progress through the stages of TTW Program participation, such as job searches and interviews, progress reviews, and changes in ticket status. ENs can be private for-profit and nonprofit organizations, as well as state vocational rehabilitation agencies (VRs). SSA and the ENs utilize the TTW program manager to operate the TTW Program and exchange information about participants. For example, the ENs use the program manager to provide updates on tasks such as selecting a payment system or requesting payments for helping the beneficiary achieve certain work goals. Since the ENs are not PRA-exempt, the multiple information collections within the TTW program manager require OMB approval, and we clear them under this information collection request (ICR). Most of the categories of information in this ICR are necessary for SSA to: (1) Comply with the Ticket to Work legislation; and (2) provide proper oversight of the program. SSA collects this information through several modalities, including forms, electronic exchanges, and written documentation. The respondents are the ENs or state VRs, as well as SSDI beneficiaries and blind or disabled SSI recipients working under the auspices of the TTW Program.
4. Representative Payment Policies and Administrative Procedures for Imposing Penalties for False or Misleading Statements or Withholding of Information—0960-0740. This information collection request comprises several regulation sections that provide additional safeguards for Social Security beneficiaries' whose representative payees receive their payment. SSA requires representative payees to notify them of any event or change in circumstances that would affect receipt of benefits or performance of payee duties. SSA uses the information to determine continued eligibility for benefits, the amount of benefits due and if the payee is suitable to continue servicing as payee. The respondents are representative payees who receive and use benefits on behalf of Social Security beneficiaries.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy will hold a public meeting from 10:00 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, December 2, 2014 in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at the corner of First Street and Constitution Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20002.
The meeting's topic will be “New Strategic Direction for International Broadcasting Activities” and will feature the Broadcasting Board of Governors' new Chief Executive Office, John Lansing. Other representatives from BBG and the State Department will also be in attendance.
This meeting is open to the public, Members and staff of Congress, the State Department, Defense Department, the media, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. To attend and make any requests for reasonable accommodation, email
The United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy appraises U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics. The Advisory Commission may conduct studies, inquiries, and meetings, as it deems necessary. It may assemble and disseminate information and issue reports and other publications, subject to the approval of the Chairperson, in consultation with the Executive Director. The Advisory Commission may undertake foreign travel in pursuit of its studies and coordinate, sponsor, or oversee projects, studies, events, or other activities that it deems desirable and necessary in fulfilling its functions.
The Commission consists of seven members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the Commission shall represent the public interest and shall be selected from a cross section of educational, communications, cultural, scientific, technical, public service, labor, business, and professional backgrounds. Not more than four members shall be from any one political party. The President designates a member to chair the Commission.
The current members of the Commission are: Mr. William Hybl of Colorado, Chairman; Ambassador Lyndon Olson of Texas, Vice Chairman; Mr. Sim Farar of California, Vice Chairman; Ambassador Penne Korth-Peacock of Texas; Ms. Lezlee Westine of Virginia; and Anne Terman Wedner of Illinois. One seat on the Commission is currently vacant.
To request further information about the meeting or the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, you may contact its Executive Director, Katherine Brown, at
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App § 10(a)(2), the Department of State announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) to take place on January 20, 2016, at the Department of State, Washington, DC.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App § 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public because the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, political-military affairs, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting will include classified discussions related to the Board's studies on current U.S. policy and issues regarding arms control, international security, nuclear proliferation, and diplomacy.
For more information, contact Christopher Herrick, Acting Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 647-9683.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the approved by rule projects rescinded by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
August 1-31, 2015.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, being rescinded for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
1. Inflection Energy (PA), LLC, Pad ID: Eichenlaub A Pad, ABR-201206014, Upper Fairfield Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 3, 2015.
2. Inflection Energy (PA), LLC, Pad ID: Iffland, ABR-201206015, Upper Fairfield Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 3, 2015.
3. Inflection Energy (PA), LLC, Pad ID: G. Adams, ABR-201206012, Mill Creek Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 3, 2015.
4. Inflection Energy (PA), LLC, Pad ID: Harris RE Trust, ABR-201207008, Fairfield Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 3, 2015.
5. Inflection Energy (PA), LLC, Pad ID: Mussina, ABR-201207001, Fairfield Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 3, 2015.
6. Tenaska Resources, LLC, Pad ID: Merlin, ABR-201012045, Sullivan Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 4, 2015.
7. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Haven 2H, ABR-201008094, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 12, 2015.
8. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Kennedy A Pad, ABR-201302001, Smithfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 12, 2015.
9. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Kingsley 5HA/6HA Pad, ABR-201110028, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 12, 2015.
10. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Plouse A Pad, ABR-201210014, Ridgebury Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 12, 2015.
11. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: SGL 90E Pad, ABR-201011025, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 12, 2015.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice and related extension of deadline.
This notice is to inform the public of the availability of import statistics for the first nine months of 2015 relating to competitive need limitations (CNLs) under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program. These import statistics identify some articles for which the 2015 trade levels may exceed statutory CNLs. Interested parties may find this information useful in deciding whether to submit a petition to waive the CNLs for individual beneficiary developing countries (BDCs) with respect to specific GSP-eligible articles. This notice also extends the deadline for submission of petitions to waive CNLs for individual BDCs with respect to GSP-eligible articles to 5 p.m., Friday, December 4, 2015.
Aimee Larsen, Director for GSP, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20508. The telephone number is (202) 395-2974 and the email address is
The GSP program provides for the duty-free importation of designated articles when imported from designated BDCs. The GSP program is authorized by Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461,
Section 503(c)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act sets out the two different measures for CNLs. When the President determines that a BDC has exported to the United States during a calendar year either (1) a quantity of a GSP-eligible article having a value in excess of the applicable amount for that year ($170 million for 2015), or (2) a quantity of a GSP-eligible article having a value equal to or greater than 50 percent of the value of total U.S. imports of the article from all countries (the “50 percent CNL”), the President must terminate GSP duty-free treatment for that article from that BDC by no later than July 1 of the next calendar year, unless the President grants a waiver before the exclusion goes into effect. CNLs do not apply to least-developed countries or beneficiaries of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
Any interested party may submit a petition seeking a waiver of the 2015 CNL for individual beneficiary developing countries with respect to specific GSP-eligible articles. In addition, under section 503(c)(2)(F) of the 1974 Act, the President may waive the 50 percent CNL with respect to an eligible article imported from a BDC, if the value of total imports of that article from all countries during the calendar year did not exceed the applicable
Exclusions from GSP duty-free treatment where CNLs have been exceeded will be effective July 1, 2016, unless the President grants a waiver before the exclusion goes into effect. Exclusions for exceeding a CNL will be based on full 2015 calendar-year import statistics.
In order to provide advance notice of articles that may exceed the CNLs for 2015, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has compiled interim import statistics for the first nine months of 2015 relating to CNLs. This information can be viewed at:
Full calendar-year 2015 data for individual tariff subheadings will be available in February 2016 on the Web site of the U.S. International Trade Commission at
The interim 2015 import statistics are organized to show, for each article, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading and BDC of origin, the value of imports of the article from the specified country for the first nine months of 2015, and the corresponding share of total imports of that article from all countries. The list includes the GSP-eligible articles from BDCs that, based on interim, nine-month 2015 data, exceed $110 million dollars, or an amount greater than 42 percent of the total value of U.S. imports of that product. In all, the following 19 products met the criteria to be placed on the list:
The list published on the USTR Web site includes the relevant nine-month trade statistics for each of these products and is provided as a courtesy for informational purposes only. The list is based on interim 2015 trade data, and may not include all articles that may be affected by the GSP CNLs. Regardless of whether or not an article is included on the list referenced in this notice, all determinations and decisions regarding application of the CNLs of the GSP program will be based on full calendar-year 2015 import data for each GSP-eligible article. Each interested party is advised to conduct its own review of 2015 import data with regard to the possible application of GSP CNLs. Please see the notice announcing the 2015 GSP Review which was published in the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting via teleconference of the Transit Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS). TRACS is a Federal Advisory Committee established by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide information, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary and the Federal Transit Administrator on matters relating to the safety of public transportation systems.
The TRACS meeting will be held on December 1, 2015, from 1 p.m.-4 p.m. (EST). Contact Bridget Zamperini (see contact information below) on or before November 27, 2015, if you wish to participate.
The meeting will be conducted via computer based meeting software and/or teleconference and is open for public participation. Instructions for accessing the meeting will be provided to all participants who pre-register with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) before the start of the meeting.
Bridget Zamperini, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, at (202) 366-0306 or
This notice is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2). As noted above, TRACS is a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide information, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on matters relating to the safety of public transportation systems. TRACS is currently composed of 28 members representing a broad base of expertise necessary to discharge its responsibilities. The tentative agenda for this meeting of TRACS is set forth below:
As previously noted, this meeting will be accessible to the public. Persons wishing to participate must contact Bridget Zamperini, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, at (202) 366-0306 or
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of advisory council public meeting.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) announces a public meeting of its U.S. Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council (MTSNAC or Council) to discuss advice and recommendations it would like to provide to the U.S. Department of Transportation for consideration on the development of a National Maritime Strategy, integration of Marine Highways into the national transportation system and options to provide a steady and reliable funding mechanism for port infrastructure development.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National Training Center, 1310 N. Courthouse Road, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-2508.
Tretha Chromey, Acting Designated Federal Officer at (202) 366-1630 or
The MTSNAC is a Federal advisory committee within MARAD that advises the U.S. Department of Transportation on issues related to the marine transportation system. The MTSNAC was originally established in 1999 and mandated in 2007 by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The MTSNAC operates in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The agenda will include: (1) Welcome, opening remarks and introductions; (2) MTSNAC members discussion on a National Maritime Strategy; (3) subcommittee updates and proposed recommendations and (4) public comment. The meeting agenda will be posted on the MTSNAC Web site at
The meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public who wish to attend in person are asked to RSVP to
49 CFR part 1.93(a); 5 U.S.C. 552b; 41 CFR parts 102-3; 5 U.S.C. app. Sections 1-16.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a revision to this information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. Currently, the OCC is soliciting comment concerning a revision to a regulatory reporting requirement for national banks and federal savings associations titled, “Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.”
Comments must be received by January 19, 2016.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0311, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Shaquita Merritt or Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officers, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, copies of the templates referenced in this notice can be found on the OCC's Web site under News and Issuances (
The OCC is requesting comment on the following revision to an approved information collection:
In 2012, the OCC first implemented the reporting templates referenced in the final rule.
The OCC intends to use the data collected to assess the reasonableness of the stress test results of covered institutions and to provide forward-looking information to the OCC regarding a covered institution's capital adequacy. The OCC also may use the results of the stress tests to determine whether additional analytical techniques and exercises could be appropriate to identify, measure, and monitor risks at the covered institution. The stress test results are expected to support ongoing improvement in a covered institution's stress testing practices with respect to its internal assessments of capital adequacy and overall capital planning.
The OCC recognizes that many covered institutions with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more are required to submit reports using CCAR reporting form FR Y-14A.
The proposed revisions to the DFAST-14A reporting templates consist of the following:
• Bank-specific scenario: Covered institutions would be required to submit bank-specific baseline and stress scenarios and projections for 2017 and will have the option to do so for 2016;
• Largest counterparty default: For the largest trading covered institutions that also submit the Global Market Shock scenario, they would be required to assume the default of their largest counterparty in the supervisory severely adverse and adverse scenarios for 2017 and will have the option to do so for 2016;
• Advanced approaches banks: (1) Delay incorporation of the supplemental leverage ratio for one year and (2)
• Reporting Template and Supporting Documentation Changes: Clarifying instructions, adding data items, deleting data items, and redefining existing data items. This includes an expansion of the information collected in the scenario schedule. The proposed revisions also include a shift of the as-of date in accordance with modifications to the OCC's stress testing rule.
• These revisions also reflect the implementation of the final Basel III regulatory capital rule. On July 9, 2013, the OCC approved a joint final rule that will revise and replace the OCC's risk-based and leverage capital requirements to be consistent with agreements reached by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in “Basel III: A Global Regulatory Framework for More Resilient Banks and Banking Systems” (Basel III).
Covered institutions would be required to submit bank-specific baseline and bank-specific stress scenarios and associated projections for the 2017 annual stress testing submission and may do so optionally for the 2016 annual stress testing submission. While supervisory scenarios provide a homogeneous scenario and a consistent market-wide view of the condition of the banking sector, these prescribed scenarios may not fully capture all of the risks that may be associated with a particular institution. The proposed revisions would require covered institutions to provide bank-specific baseline and bank-specific stress scenarios.
The OCC recognizes that the Board requires bank holding companies (BHCs) to submit BHC-specific baseline and stress scenarios and projections. Where OCC-covered institutions also submit BHC-specific scenarios, the OCC would require that bank-specific scenarios would be consistent with the BHC-specific scenarios.
Covered institutions that currently complete the Global Market Shock would also be required to complete the Largest Counterparty Default component for the 2017 submission and have the option to do so for the 2016 submission. This is currently required by the Board, and the OCC would adopt a similar requirement to enhance consistency and reduce regulatory burden.
The supplementary leverage ratio requirement applies only to covered institutions that use the advanced approaches to calculate their minimum regulatory capital requirements. For these covered institutions, the proposal would delay the incorporation of the supplementary leverage ratio in stress testing projections for one year. Under the proposal, these covered institutions would not be required to include an estimate of the supplementary leverage ratio for the stress test cycle beginning on January 1, 2016. The OCC understands that the Board is proposing a similar requirement, and the OCC would adopt a similar requirement to enhance consistency and reduce regulatory burden.
Covered institutions have noted that the use of advanced approaches in stress test rules would require significant resources and would introduce complexity and opacity. In light of the concerns raised by these covered institutions, and pending a review of how the stress test rules interact with the regulatory capital rules as described above, the proposal would delay until further notice the use of the advanced approaches for calculating risk-based capital requirements for purposes of the capital plan and stress test rule.
The proposed revisions to the DFAST-14A consist of clarifying instructions, adding and removing schedules, adding, deleting, and modifying existing data items, and altering the as-of dates. These proposed changes would (1) increase consistency between the DFAST-14A with the FR Y-14A, Call Report, FFIEC 101, and FFIEC 102; (2) remove the requirement to calculate tier 1 common capital and the tier 1 common ratio; (3) shift the as-of dates by one quarter in accordance with the modifications to the stress test rules; (4) modify and expand the supporting documentation requirements; and (5) increase the historical information collected in the scenario schedule in order to facilitate comparisons of the data. Furthermore, the OCC understands that the Board is currently collecting information for the Summary Schedule via XML scheme technology, and the OCC would use a similar format to enhance consistency and reduce regulatory burden. Technical details on these forms will be provided separately.
This schedule would be removed in accordance with the proposed revisions to eliminate use of the tier 1 common ratio, effective for the 2016 DFAST submission. However, in order to mitigate operational issues and allow for appropriate time to adjust internal systems to accommodate changes this schedule would remain part of the technical XML instructions for the 2016 DFAST submission.
This schedule would be modified to increase consistency with the FFIEC 102. Specifically, the items of the existing market risk-weighted asset portion would be replaced with the appropriate items from the FFIEC 102. These changes would be effective for the 2017 DFAST submission.
The OCC proposes removing certain items related to tier 1 common capital, effective for the 2016 DFAST submission. However, in order to mitigate operational issues and allow for appropriate time to adjust internal systems to accommodate changes, this schedule would remain part of the technical XML instructions for the DFAST 2016 submission. Additionally, effective for the 2016 DFAST submission, the OCC proposes adding one item that captures the aggregate non-significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions in the form of common stock and breaking out two items related to deferred tax assets into the amount before valuation allowances and the associated valuation allowance. The additional information from these changes would result in two existing items converting to derived items based on the additional information.
This schedule would be removed to reduce reporting burden, effective for the 2017 DFAST submission.
This schedule would be removed to reduce reporting burden, effective for the 2017 DFAST submission.
In order to fully align the schedule with the stress scenarios, the beta information would be collected according to the scenario instead of the current “normal environment” requirement, effective for the 2016 DFAST submission.
This schedule would be removed to reduce reporting burden effective for the 2016 DFAST submission. Aggregate counterparty credit risk information will continue to be obtained through the Summary Schedule (Schedule A).
Information about additional scenarios that are used by covered institutions is currently submitted in a format with limited structure, which makes it difficult for the OCC to evaluate. As such, the OCC would require that covered institutions provide three more historical quarters in addition to the currently required most recent historical quarter of actual data values for each additional variable submitted. The OCC would also provide additional instructions on variable naming conventions and other appropriate standardizations in order to facilitate more streamlined electronic processing of the data.
The OCC believes that the systems covered institutions use to prepare the FR Y-14 reporting templates to submit to the Board will also be used to prepare the reporting templates described in this notice. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 4 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2015 Revision, published July 1, 2015, at 80 FR 37735.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.
Notice is hereby given by the Treasury that COLONIAL SURETY COMPANY formally changed its “BUSINESS ADDRESS” to: 123 Tice Boulevard, Suite 250, Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677.
Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2015 revision, to reflect this change.
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D22, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of two individuals and two entities whose property and interests in property have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act) (21 U.S.C. 1901-1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The designation by the Acting Director of OFAC of the two individuals and two entities identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on November 10, 2015.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site at
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
On November 10, 2015, the Acting Director of OFAC designated the following two individuals and two entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
1. FEO ALVARADO, Alveiro (a.k.a. “BENAVIDES”), Colombia; DOB 16 Jun 1967; POB El Paso, Cesar, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 77162067 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: LOS URABENOS). Designated for materially assisting in, or providing support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of LOS URABENOS; and/or being controlled, directed by and/or acting for or on behalf of LOS URABENOS, and therefore meets the statutory criteria for designation as a Specially Designated Narcotics Trafficker (SDNT) pursuant to sections 805(b)(2) and/or (3) of the Kingpin Act.
2. MOSQUERA PEREZ, Victor Alfonso (a.k.a. “NEGRO MOSQUERA”), Colombia; DOB 14 Sep 1984; POB Turbo, Antioquia, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 8358401 (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: LOS URABENOS). Designated for materially assisting in, or providing support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of LOS URABENOS; and/or being controlled, directed by, and/or acting for or on behalf of LOS URABENOS, and therefore meets the statutory criteria for designation as an SDNT pursuant to sections 805(b)(2) and/or (3) of the Kingpin Act.
1. DE EXPOMINERIA S.A.S. (a.k.a. DE EXPOMINERIA S.A.), Calle 40, 81 a 15, Medellin, Colombia; NIT # 900328871-2 (Colombia) [SDNTK]. Designated for being owned, controlled, directed by, and/or acting for or on behalf of LOS URABENOS, and therefore meets the statutory criteria for designation as an SDNT pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act.
2. JOYERIA MVK, Calle 100 # 10-29, Turbo, Antioquia, Colombia; NIT # 8358401-7 (Colombia) [SDNTK]. Designated for being owned, controlled, directed by, and/or acting for or on behalf of LOS URABENOS and therefore meets the statutory criteria for designation as an SDNT pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning modifications of commercial mortgage loans held by a real estate mortgage investment conduit.
Written comments should be received on or before January 19, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Sara Covington at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 4255, Recapture of Investment Credit.
Written comments should be received on or before January 19, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Michael Joplin, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
| 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 |