| Page Range | 73631-73942 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 73941 - Thanksgiving Day, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 73939 - National Family Week, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 73633 - Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi | |
| 80 FR 73785 - Final Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act Safeguards and Research Criteria for Transplantation of Organs Infected With HIV | |
| 80 FR 73766 - Government in the Sunshine Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 73631 - National Child's Day, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 73871 - Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information Collection Request: 391.41 CMV Driver Medication Form | |
| 80 FR 73679 - Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects | |
| 80 FR 73807 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD Standard Grant Application Forms | |
| 80 FR 73696 - Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on FirstNet's Incumbent Relocation Proposal | |
| 80 FR 73756 - Board of Scientific Counselors Executive Committee; Notification of Public Meeting and Public Comment | |
| 80 FR 73755 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) Final Determinations in New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands | |
| 80 FR 73758 - Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Community Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC) | |
| 80 FR 73700 - Grant of Authority; Establishment of a Foreign-Trade Zone Under the Alternative Site Framework Western Kentucky | |
| 80 FR 73701 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 141-Rochester, New York, Termination of Review of Notification of Proposed Production Activity American Tactical Imports (Deconstruction of Firearms), Rochester, New York | |
| 80 FR 73868 - Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Notice of Acceptance of a Country Practices Petition on Thailand; Notice of Schedule for Public Comments and a Hearing on Certain Country Practice Reviews | |
| 80 FR 73866 - Homeland Security Advisory Council-New Tasking | |
| 80 FR 73865 - Notice of Meeting of Advisory Committee on International Law | |
| 80 FR 73866 - Removal of Sanctions on Person on Whom Sanctions Have Been Imposed Under the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, as Amended | |
| 80 FR 73769 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 73865 - Modification of Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act Measures Against a Russian Entity | |
| 80 FR 73692 - Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York | |
| 80 FR 73867 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Reporting Requirements for Responsible Investment in Burma | |
| 80 FR 73835 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Settlement Agreement Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 80 FR 73742 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
| 80 FR 73770 - Determination That TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (Acetaminophen With Codeine Phosphate) Oral Tablets, 325 Milligrams/7.5 Milligrams, 325 Milligrams/15 Milligrams, 325 Milligrams/30 Milligrams, and 325 Milligrams/60 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
| 80 FR 73779 - Federal Financial Participation in State Assistance Expenditures; Federal Matching Shares for Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and Aid to Needy Aged, Blind, or Disabled Persons for October 1, 2016 Through September 30, 2017 | |
| 80 FR 73804 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 73731 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Numbers 3038-0068, 3038-0083, and 3038-0088, Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants | |
| 80 FR 73732 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Number 3038-0078, Conflicts of Interest Policies and Procedures by Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers | |
| 80 FR 73740 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
| 80 FR 73669 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
| 80 FR 73782 - Medicare Program; Administrative Law Judge Hearing Program for Medicare Claim and Entitlement Appeals; Quarterly Listing of Program Issuances-July Through September 2015 | |
| 80 FR 73670 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
| 80 FR 73734 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 73798 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 73836 - Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 73876 - Central Federal Savings and Loan Association of Rolla, Rolla, Missouri; Approval of Conversion Application; OCC Charter Number 705710 | |
| 80 FR 73805 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 73875 - Indiana Southern Railroad, LLC-Temporary Trackage Rights Exemption-Norfolk Southern Railway Company | |
| 80 FR 73759 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 80 FR 73797 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 73839 - Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Open Committee Meetings | |
| 80 FR 73836 - Office of Government Information Services; Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 73836 - Notice of Appointments of Individuals To Serve as Members of Performance Review Boards | |
| 80 FR 73814 - Extension of Public Comment Period and Schedule of Public Scoping Meetings and Public Meetings for the Proposed Withdrawal of Sagebrush Focal Areas in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, and an Associated Environmental Impact Statement; Correction | |
| 80 FR 73875 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel VAGO; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 73813 - Call for Nominations for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Advisory Committee, Utah | |
| 80 FR 73837 - Performance Review Boards for Senior Executive Service | |
| 80 FR 73744 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
| 80 FR 73837 - License Renewal for Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 | |
| 80 FR 73640 - Onions Grown in South Texas; Increased Assessment Rate | |
| 80 FR 73812 - Second Call for Nominations for the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board | |
| 80 FR 73642 - Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Decreased Assessment Rate | |
| 80 FR 73802 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 73760 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 73784 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 73644 - Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate | |
| 80 FR 73816 - 2015 Third Call for Nominations for Coeur d'Alene Resource Advisory Committee, Idaho | |
| 80 FR 73689 - Anchorage Regulations; Connecticut River, Old Saybrook, CT | |
| 80 FR 73814 - Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council Call for Nominees To Complete Elected Official Term | |
| 80 FR 73814 - Call for Nominations for Central California Resource Advisory Council | |
| 80 FR 73871 - Environmental Impact Statement: Alexander, Pulaski, and Union Counties, Illinois | |
| 80 FR 73808 - Receipt of Applications for Endangered Species Permits | |
| 80 FR 73759 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 73838 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review | |
| 80 FR 73740 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 73700 - Foreign-Trade Zone 38-Spartanburg County, South Carolina; Application for Reorganization (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework | |
| 80 FR 73810 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Receipt of Application for an Incidental Take Permit; Availability of Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan and Associated Documents; Polk County, FL | |
| 80 FR 73815 - Notice of Public Meeting Postponement, BLM Colorado Northwest Resource Advisory Council | |
| 80 FR 73839 - Notice of Wireless Telecommunications Site | |
| 80 FR 73774 - Public Meeting on Patient-Focused Drug Development for Psoriasis | |
| 80 FR 73771 - Certification Process for Designated Medical Gases; Revised Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 80 FR 73708 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations | |
| 80 FR 73698 - Privacy Act of 1974; Amended System of Records | |
| 80 FR 73658 - Establishment of the Eagle Foothills Viticultural Area | |
| 80 FR 73716 - Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and The People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations | |
| 80 FR 73726 - Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand | |
| 80 FR 73739 - Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial Proceedings Panel); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 73815 - Notice of Intent To Amend the Resource Management Plan for the California Desert Conservation Area and Prepare an Associated Environmental Assessment for the Plan Amendment and the Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project, California | |
| 80 FR 73678 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: NASA Capitalization Threshold (NFS Case 2015-N004) | |
| 80 FR 73834 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection; Collection of Laboratory Analysis Data on Drug Samples Tested by Non-Federal (State and Local Government) Crime Laboratories | |
| 80 FR 73730 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Elliot Bay Seawall Project in Seattle, Washington | |
| 80 FR 73735 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers | |
| 80 FR 73738 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Requirements for Electrically Operated Toys and Children's Articles | |
| 80 FR 73736 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station Antennas | |
| 80 FR 73737 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Flammability Standards for Children's Sleepwear | |
| 80 FR 73874 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 73755 - Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Informal Settlement Conference | |
| 80 FR 73683 - Reactive Power Requirements for Non-Synchronous Generation | |
| 80 FR 73647 - Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of “Remedial Action Scheme” and Related Reliability Standards | |
| 80 FR 73754 - Howard and Mildred Carter, Allen Rae Carter; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 80 FR 73751 - Great Bear Hydropower, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 80 FR 73778 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 73778 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 73752 - PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Potomac Electric Power Company; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments | |
| 80 FR 73747 - Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for and Requesting Comments on the Proposed Atlantic Bridge Project | |
| 80 FR 73751 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 80 FR 73749 - Combined Notice of Filings #3 | |
| 80 FR 73753 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 73753 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 73750 - Susan Raymond; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 80 FR 73726 - North American Free Trade Agreement, Article 1904; NAFTA Panel Reviews; First Request for Panel Review | |
| 80 FR 73828 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 80 FR 73811 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Bureau of Indian Education Tribal Colleges and Universities; Application for Grants and Annual Report Form | |
| 80 FR 73870 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Cape Productions, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 73870 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 73776 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 73675 - NASA FAR Supplement: Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting | |
| 80 FR 73704 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From Pakistan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 80 FR 73722 - Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 80 FR 73701 - High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
| 80 FR 73784 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 73783 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 73797 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 73796 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 73783 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 73829 - Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From China and Taiwan; Notice of Commission Determinations To Conduct Full Five-Year Reviews | |
| 80 FR 73702 - Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations | |
| 80 FR 73833 - William Mikaitis, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 80 FR 73830 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards Warehouse | |
| 80 FR 73729 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Interim Procedures for Considering Requests and Comments from the Public Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement | |
| 80 FR 73702 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Interim Procedures for Considering Requests and Comments From the Public for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Actions on Imports From Korea | |
| 80 FR 73858 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 6191(b) and Amend FINRA Rule 7440 To Implement the Data Collection Requirements of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program | |
| 80 FR 73853 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 6191(a) To Implement the Quoting and Trading Requirements of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program | |
| 80 FR 73839 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Proposed Rule Change To Trade Expiring MSCI EAFE Index Options Until 3:00 p.m. | |
| 80 FR 73849 - Order Granting a Conditional Exemption Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 From the Confirmation Requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a) for Certain Transactions in Money Market Funds | |
| 80 FR 73852 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Related to the ICC Rule Enforcement Process for Missed Submissions | |
| 80 FR 73841 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BATS Rule 14.11(i) To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund Shares | |
| 80 FR 73806 - Intent To Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Transportation Security Officer Medical Questionnaire | |
| 80 FR 73674 - Shared Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band | |
| 80 FR 73756 - Announcement of the Board of Directors for the National Environmental Education Foundation | |
| 80 FR 73765 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 73715 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Foreign-Trade Zone Applications | |
| 80 FR 73766 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
| 80 FR 73734 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 73818 - Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore South Carolina-Call for Information and Nominations (Call) MMAA104000 | |
| 80 FR 73817 - Environmental Assessment for Commercial Wind Leasing and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Offshore South Carolina; MMAA104000 | |
| 80 FR 73878 - Office of the Chief of Protocol; Gifts to Federal Employees From Foreign Government Sources Reported to Employing Agencies in Calendar Year 2014 | |
| 80 FR 73695 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities | |
| 80 FR 73663 - Saflufenacil; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 80 FR 73661 - Aureobasidium Pullulans Strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance | |
| 80 FR 73681 - Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines | |
| 80 FR 73667 - Occupational Safety and Health Research and Related Activities: Removal of Regulations Regarding Administrative Functions, Practices, and Procedures | |
| 80 FR 73680 - Treatment of Financial Assets Transferred in Connection With a Securitization or Participation | |
| 80 FR 73647 - Rural Development Loan Servicing; Correction | |
| 80 FR 73637 - Area Risk Protection Insurance (ARPI) Regulations; ARPI Basic Provisions and ARPI Forage Crop Insurance Provisions |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Farm Service Agency
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule with request for comments.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) amends the Area Risk Protection Insurance (ARPI) Regulations; ARPI Basic Provisions and ARPI Forage Crop Insurance Provisions. The intended effect of this action is to meet the goals of the Acreage Crop Reporting Streamlining Initiative (ACRSI), which is a United States Department of Agriculture initiative and required by Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill), by aligning ARPI Forage Production with the Actual Production History Forage Production Crop Insurance Provisions and to address language contained in section 12305(b)(1)(B) of the 2014 Farm Bill that prohibits FCIC from offering the catastrophic (CAT) level of coverage for any crops or grasses used for grazing. The changes will be effective for the 2017 and succeeding crop years.
This rule is effective November 25, 2015. Written comments and opinions on this rule will be accepted until close of business January 25, 2016. FCIC will consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.
FCIC prefers that comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. FCIC-15-0003 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received, including those received by mail, will be posted without change to
Tim Hoffmann, Director, Product Management, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.
We are issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity for comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” from the statutory requirement for prior notice and opportunity for comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). However, FCIC is providing a 60-day comment period and we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments. We will consider the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not-significant for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by OMB.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0085.
FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
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 contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.
This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
FCIC amends the Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 407) by revising § 407.9 Area Risk Protection Insurance Policy and § 407.13 Forage Crop Insurance Provisions to be effective for the 2017 succeeding crop years. The revisions meet certain goals of ACRSI, which include elimination of duplicate information collection, simplification of producer reporting, and incorporating language contained in section 12305(b)(1)(B) of the 2014 Farm Bill prohibiting FCIC from offering the CAT level of coverage for any crops or grasses used for grazing.
Previously, changes made to the Federal crop insurance policies codified in the Code of Federal Regulations were required to be implemented through the rulemaking process. Such action was not required by the Administrative Procedures Act because contracts were exempt from notice and comment rulemaking and the crop insurance policy is a contract. However, a prior Secretary of Agriculture published a notice in the
For these reasons, these policy changes are effective upon publication at the Office of the Federal Register.
The specific revisions to Area Risk Protection Insurance Policy (7 CFR 407.9) are as follows:
1. Section 8—FCIC is revising paragraph (e)(2). The current provisions regarding the insured's ability to revise an acreage report state that consent may only be provided if the information on the acreage report is clearly transposed, or the insured provides adequate evidence that the insurance company or someone from USDA has committed an error regarding the information on the acreage report. FCIC is revising this provision to include language that gives FCIC the flexibility through the Crop Provisions or through the Special Provisions to provide additional circumstances for which insureds may revise their acreage reports. This change is necessary due to changes in the ARPI Forage Crop Provisions stated below that allow acreage reports be revised when the acreage has suffered winterkill. FCIC is also revising the paragraph to improve readability.
The specific changes to ARPI Forage crop insurance provisions (7 CFR 407.13) are as follows:
1. Section 1—FCIC is revising the definition of “harvest.” The definition of “harvest” states “removal of the forage from the field, and rotational grazing.”
However, the 2014 Farm Bill prohibits FCIC from offering the CAT level of coverage for any crops or grasses used for grazing. Further, the Noninsured Crop Assistance Program (NAP) offers coverage at the CAT and additional levels of coverage. To avoid confusion between the benefits available, FCIC is removing the option to purchase coverage for grazing at the additional and CAT level of coverage so that forage producers are eligible for at least the CAT level of coverage offered under other USDA programs. Therefore, FCIC is removing the term “rotational grazing,” from the definition of “harvest” and removing the definition of “rotational grazing” so that FCIC can continue to offer the CAT level of coverage to forage producers who do not graze acreage.
2. Section 5—FCIC is moving the cancellation date, termination date and contract change date 60 days earlier: For the termination and cancellation dates,
3. Section 6—FCIC is removing this section and add another in its place. The current section 6 addresses when premium is earned and payable, and overrides section 7(e) in the ARPI Basic Provisions. Basic Provisions section 7(e) states that premium is earned and payable at the time coverage begins, whereas section 6 of the Forage Crop Provisions states that premium is earned and payable on the acreage reporting date. Coverage for forage begins on the date the insurance company accepts the application, which is in the fall. Currently, premium for forage is not earned and payable at the time coverage begins, but rather on the acreage reporting date, which is approximately eight months after insureds submit their applications. Premium is earned and payable on the acreage reporting date because insureds have the opportunity at acreage reporting date to opt out of coverage if they can establish that their acreage was damaged by winterkill by reporting such acreage as uninsurable on the acreage report. Insureds do not owe premium on acreage damaged by winterkill if they report such acreage on the acreage report as uninsurable. Insureds do not know if their acreage is damaged by winterkill until mid-to-late spring. If insureds report such acreage as uninsurable, then they are not required to pay premium on that acreage. FCIC proposes to remove these provisions, which then makes section 7(e) of the Basic Provisions applicable. Therefore, premium will be earned and payable at the time coverage begins. This change will make forage insured under ARPI consistent with forage insured under the APH plan of insurance. As a result of another revision discussed below, insureds will have an opportunity to revise their acreage reports after the acreage reporting date to report their acreage damaged by winterkill as uninsurable acreage if they do not wish to insure that acreage and pay premium on it.
FCIC is adding a new section 6 titled “Report of Acreage.” The provisions in section 6 will allow insureds to submit a revised acreage report by a date specified in the Special Provisions if they want to report their acreage damaged by winterkill as uninsurable acreage. FCIC anticipates the date specified in the Special Provisions to be May 15. Without this provision, insureds would be required to insure and pay premium on acreage they currently are not required to insure under the ARPI Forage Crop Provisions.
Crop insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 407 effective for the 2017 and succeeding crop years as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(1), 1506(o).
The revisions read as follows:
8. Report of Acreage and Production
(e) * * *
(2) Consent may only be provided:
(i) If the information on the acreage report is clearly transposed;
(ii) If you provide adequate evidence that we have or someone from USDA has committed an error regarding the information on your acreage report;
(iii) If allowed in the Crop Provisions; or
(iv) As otherwise provided in the Special Provisions; and
The revisions read as follows:
1. Definitions
5. Program Dates
September 30 is the cancellation and termination date for all states, unless the date is specified differently in the Special Provisions. The contract change date is June 30 for all states, unless the date is specified differently in the Special Provisions.
6. Report of Acreage
In addition to section 8(e)(2) of the Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions, regarding the ability to revise an acreage report you have submitted to us, we may provide you consent to revise your acreage report to indicate acreage damaged by winterkill that was not harvested (no cutting taken) as uninsurable acreage. You must submit a revised acreage report on or before the date specified in the Special Provisions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule implements a recommendation from the South Texas Onion Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of onions handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of onions operating within the area of production. Assessments upon onion handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Effective November 27, 2015.
Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 959, as amended (7 CFR part 959), regulating the handling of onions grown in South Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, South Texas onion handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable onions beginning August 1, 2015, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule increases the assessment rate established by the Committee for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of onions.
The South Texas onion marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of South Texas onions. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2012-13 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.
The Committee met on June 25, 2015, and unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $149,807 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of onions. Budgeted expenditures for the 2014-15 fiscal period were the same. The assessment rate of $0.05 is $0.02 higher than the rate currently in effect. With the 2015-16 crop estimated to be four million 50-pound equivalents, one million less than last year's estimate, the current assessment rate would be insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures. Further, due to a crop failure during the 2014-15 season, the Committee has depleted its reserve funds. With the Committee's recommended $0.02 increase, assessment income should approximate $200,000. This should provide sufficient funds to cover anticipated 2015-16 expenses and add funds to the Committee's authorized reserve.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 year include $50,000 for compliance, $37,050 for administrative, and $32,942 for management. Budgeted expenses for these items were the same in 2014-15.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments of South Texas onions, and the level of funds in reserve. As mentioned earlier, onion shipments for the year are estimated at four million 50-pound equivalents which should provide $200,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $23,906) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order (approximately two fiscal periods' expenses as authorized in § 959.43).
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 60 producers of onions in the production area and approximately 20 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to Committee data and information from the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), the average price for South Texas onions during the 2013-2014 season was around $12.00 per 50-pound equivalent and total shipments were approximately 4.4 million 50-pound equivalents. Based on this information and data on acreage and yield, the majority of South Texas onion producers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. In addition, based on available information, more than 50 percent of South Texas onion handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. Thus, the majority of South Texas onion producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of Texas onions. The Committee unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $149,807 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent. The assessment rate of $0.05 is $0.02 higher than the 2012-13 rate. The quantity of assessable onions for the 2015-16 fiscal period is estimated at four million 50-pound equivalents. Thus, the $0.05 rate should provide $200,000 in assessment income and be adequate to meet this year's expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 fiscal period include $50,000 for compliance, $37,050 for administrative, and $32,942 for management. Budgeted expenses for these items were the same during the 2014-15 fiscal period.
With the 2015-16 crop estimated to be four million 50-pound equivalents, one million less than last year's estimate, the current assessment rate would be insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures. Further, due to a crop failure during the 2014-15 season, the Committee has depleted its reserve funds. The Committee recommended the $0.02 increase to provide sufficient funds to cover anticipated 2015-16 expenses and add funds to the Committee's authorized reserve.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by this group, based upon the relative value of various activities to the South Texas onion industry. The Committee ultimately determined that 2015-16 expenditures of $149,807 were appropriate, and the recommended assessment rate, along with interest income, would generate sufficient revenue to meet its expenses.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming season indicates that the grower price for the 2015-16 season should average around $9.55 per 50-pound equivalent of onions. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2015-16 fiscal period as a percentage of total grower revenue could be approximately 0.52 percent for the season.
This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. However, these costs are offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the South Texas onion industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 25, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 (Vegetable and Specialty Crops). No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large South Texas onion handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication
Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 959 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent is established for South Texas onions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim rule with request for comments.
This rule implements a recommendation from the Florida Tomato Committee (Committee) for a decrease in the assessment rate established for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0375 to $0.03 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of producers of tomatoes operating within the area of production. Assessments upon tomato handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Effective November 27, 2015. Comments received by January 25, 2016, will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet:
Steven Kauffman, Marketing Specialist or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 837-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffery Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 125 and Order No. 966, both as amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Florida tomato handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable Florida tomatoes beginning August 1, 2015, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0375 to $0.03 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes.
The Florida tomato marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers of Florida tomatoes. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2013-14 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information
The Committee met on August 25, 2015, and unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $1,513,177 and an assessment rate of $0.03 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,823,925. The assessment rate of $0.03 is $0.0075 lower than the rate currently in effect. The budget recommended for 2015-16 include decreases in education and promotion expenditures and personnel costs. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to more closely align assessment income to the lower budget.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 year include $435,377 for salaries, $400,000 for education and promotion, and $400,000 for research. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2014-15 were $498,500, $750,000, and $300,000, respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by reviewing anticipated expenses, shipments, funds from block grants, interest income, and available reserves. Florida tomato shipments for the year are estimated at 33 million 25-pound cartons which should provide $990,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, interest income, and funds from block grants, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $1,136,195) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of not to exceed one fiscal period's expenses as authorized in § 966.44.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2015-16 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 100 producers of tomatoes in the production area and approximately 80 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on industry and Committee data, the average annual price for fresh Florida tomatoes during the 2014-15 season was approximately $10.58 per 25-pound container, and total fresh shipments for the 2014-15 season were approximately 36.5 million cartons. Based on the average price, about 80 percent of handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. In addition, based on production data, grower prices as reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the total number of Florida tomato growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of Florida tomatoes may be classified as small entities.
This rule decreases the assessment rate established by the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0375 to $0.03 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes. The Committee unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $1,513,177 and an assessment rate of $0.03 per 25-pound carton. The assessment rate of $0.03 is $0.0075 lower than the 2013-14 rate. The quantity of assessable tomatoes for the 2015-16 season is estimated at 33 million cartons. Thus, the $0.03 rate should provide $990,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, interest income, and funds from block grants, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 year include $435,377 for salaries, $400,000 for education and promotion, and $400,000 for research. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2014-15 were $498,500, $750,000, and $300,000, respectively. The Committee recommended a decrease in the assessment rate based on a reduction in expenditures for education and promotion, and personnel expenses.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee Executive Subcommittee, Research Subcommittee, and Education and Promotion Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various activities to the tomato industry. The Committee ultimately determined that assessment revenue, along with grant funds, funds from reserves and interest income, would generate sufficient revenue to meet its expenses.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the average grower price for the 2015-16 season may be around $10.50 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2015-16 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue could be approximately 0.3 percent.
This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Florida tomato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 25, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida tomato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tomatoes.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.03 per 25-pound container is established for Florida tomatoes.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule implements a recommendation from the Raisin Administrative Committee (committee) for an increase of the assessment rate established for the 2015-16 and subsequent crop years from $14.00 to $17.00 per ton of California raisins handled under the marketing order (order). The committee locally administers the order, and is comprised of producers and handlers of raisins operating within the area of production. Assessments upon raisin handlers are used by the committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The crop year begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Effective November 27, 2015.
Maria Stobbe, Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906; or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 989, both as amended (7 CFR part 989), regulating the handling of raisins produced from grapes grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California raisin handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable raisins beginning on August 1, 2015, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for
This rule increases the assessment rate established by the committee for the 2015-16 and subsequent crop years from $14.00 to $17.00 per ton of California raisins handled.
Sections 989.79 and 989.80, respectively, of the order provide authority for the committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses, and to collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the committee are producers and handlers of California raisins. They are familiar with the committee's needs and with costs for goods and services in their local area, and are, thus, in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2010-11 and subsequent crop years, the committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from crop year to crop year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other information available to USDA.
The committee met on June 11, 2015, and recommended an assessment rate increase from $14.00 per ton to $17.00 per ton by a unanimous vote. At this meeting, the committee also recommended a budget for the 2015-16 crop year, with recommended expenses and contingency reserve totaling $5,832,496. The vote on this recommendation was also unanimous. The assessment rate of $17.00 per ton is expected to generate assessment income of $5,832,496, which should be sufficient to fund the 2015-16 expenses.
As previously stated, the committee's budget for the 2015-16 crop year is $5,832,496, and the assessment rate is $17.00 per ton, which is $3.00 per ton higher than the rate currently in effect.
The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2015-16 crop year include: Salaries and employee-related costs of $1,402,906; administration costs of $610,000; compliance activities costs of $30,000; research and studies costs of $129,000; operation and maintenance costs of the generic marketing programs of $3,520,178; and a contingency of $355,503. Subtracted from these expenses is $215,091, which represents reimbursable costs for the shared management of the State marketing program.
In comparison, last year's approved budgeted expenditures included: Salaries and employee-related costs of $1,337,100; administration costs of $493,500; compliance activities costs of $30,000; research and studies costs of $85,000; operation and maintenance costs of the generic marketing programs of $3,296,800; and a contingency of $100,000. Reimbursable costs for the shared management of the State marketing program of $166,860 were subtracted, resulting in a total approved budget for the 2014-15 crop year of $5,175,540.
The committee believes that more funds should be spent in promoting raisins internationally, including China. For that reason, budgeted expenses in those endeavors have been increased: Research and studies costs increased from $85,000 for the 2014-15 crop year to $129,000 for the 2015-16 crop year; and operation and maintenance costs of generic marketing programs increased from $3,296,800 for the 2014-15 crop year to $3,520,178 for the 2015-16 crop year. In addition, the committee included a contingency fund for unexpected expenses and opportunities that may occur during the year.
The quantity of assessable raisins for 2015-16 crop year was estimated to be 343,088 tons. At the assessment rate of $17.00 per ton, the anticipated assessment income would be $5,832,496. Sufficient income should be generated at the higher assessment rate for the committee to meet its anticipated expenses.
Pursuant to § 989.81(a) of the order, any unexpended assessment funds from the crop year must be credited or refunded to the handlers from whom collected.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the committee will continue to meet prior to or during each crop year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of committee meetings are available from the committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The committee's 2015-16 budget and those for subsequent crop years, would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 3,000 producers of California raisins and approximately 20 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and defines small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000. (13 CFR 121.201.)
Based upon shipment data and other information provided by the committee, it may be concluded that a majority of producers and approximately 18 handlers of California raisins may be classified as small entities.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent crop years from $14.00 to $17.00 per ton of assessable raisins acquired by handlers.
The committee reviewed and identified the expenses that are reasonable and necessary to continue program operations during the 2015-16 crop year. The resulting recommended budget totals $5,832,496 for the 2015-16 crop year. This represents an overall increase from the 2014-15 budget, which totaled $5,175,540. The 2015-16 budget includes additional expenditures to fund increased promotional programs
The quantity of assessable raisins for 2015-16 crop year was estimated to be 343,088 tons. At the assessment rate of $17.00 per ton, the anticipated assessment income would be $5,832,496. Sufficient income should be generated at the higher assessment rate for the committee to meet its anticipated expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2015-16 crop year include: Salaries and employee-related costs of $1,402,906; administration costs of $610,000; compliance activities costs of $30,000; research costs of $129,000; operation and maintenance costs of generic marketing programs of $3,520,178; and a contingency of $355,503.
In comparison, last year's approved budgeted expenditures included: Salaries and employee-related costs of $1,337,100; administration costs of $493,500; compliance activities costs of $30,000; research costs of $85,000; operation and maintenance costs of generic marketing programs of $3,296,800; and a contingency of $100,000. The total budget approved for the 2014-15 crop year was $5,175,540.
The committee believes that more funds should be spent in promoting raisins internationally, including China. For that reason, expenses for research and promotion activities have been increased: Operation and maintenance costs of generic marketing programs increased from $3,296,800 for the 2014-15 crop year to $3,520,178 for the 2015-16 crop year, and research costs have increased from $85,000 for the 2014-15 crop year to $129,000 for the 2015-16 crop year. In order to fund these additional expenditures, the committee recommended an increased assessment rate.
Pursuant to § 989.81(a) of the order, any unexpended assessment funds from the crop year must be credited or refunded to the handlers from whom collected.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the committee considered information from various sources, such as the committee's Audit and Marketing Subcommittees. Alternative spending levels were discussed by the Marketing and Audit Subcommittees, which met on June 8, 2015 and June 11, 2015, to review the committee's financial operations.
The committee ultimately decided that the recommended budget and assessment rate were reasonable and necessary to properly administer the order.
A review of statistical data on the California raisin industry indicates that assessment revenue has consistently been less than one percent of grower revenue in recent years. With a $17.00 assessment rate, assessment revenue is expected to remain at less than one percent of grower revenue.
Regarding the impact of this action on affected entities, this action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While increased assessments impose additional costs on handlers regulated under the order, the rates are uniform on all handlers, and proportional to the size of their businesses. It is expected that these costs would be offset by the benefits derived from the operation of the order.
In addition, the meetings of the Audit and Marketing Subcommittees, and the full committee were widely publicized throughout the California raisin industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and encouraged to participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all subcommittee and committee meetings, the June 8, 2015 and June 11, 2015, meetings were public meetings, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, “Vegetable and Specialty Crops.” No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California raisin handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Grapes, Marketing agreements, Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $17.00 per ton is established for assessable raisins produced from grapes grown in California.
Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Utilities Service, and Farm Service Agency USDA.
Direct final rule; correction.
This document contains corrections to the published rule in the
Effective November 25, 2015.
Melvin Padgett, Rural Development, Business Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 3226, Washington, DC 20250-3225; telephone (202) 720-1495; email
In the rule that is the subject of this correction, the Agency revised 7 CFR 1956.101 as intended, but the Agency inadvertently did not make the correct conforming change in 7 CFR 1956.147. To correct this oversight, the Agency is “reserving” 7 CFR 1956.147 in its entirety. This correction has no substantive effect on how debts are settled under this part.
As published, the text that remains in 7 CFR 1956.147 after the March 13, 2015, rule may be misleading and cause confusion as a result of the changes made to 7 CFR 1956.101 in the March 13, 2015, rule.
Loan programs—agriculture, Loan programs—housing and community development.
Accordingly, 7 CFR 1956.147 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
5 U.S.C. 301; and 7 U.S.C. 1989.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
The Commission approves Reliability Standards and definitions of terms submitted in three related petitions by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-approved Electric Reliability Organization. The Commission approves Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 (Emergency Operations) and PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding). The proposed Reliability Standards consolidate, streamline and clarify the existing requirements of certain currently-effective Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) and Protection and Control (PRC) standards. The Commission also approves NERC's revised definition of the term Remedial Action Scheme as set forth in the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards, and modifications of specified Reliability Standards to incorporate the revised definition. Further, the Commission approves the implementation plans, and the retirement of certain currently-effective Reliability Standards.
This rule will become effective January 25, 2016.
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
2. Further, the Commission approves NERC's revised definition of the term Remedial Action Scheme as set forth in the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary), and modifications of specified Reliability Standards to incorporate the revised definition. Also, the Commission approves the associated implementation plans and assigned violation risk factors and violation severity levels for Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 and Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, as well as the retirement of certain currently-effective Reliability Standards.
3. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight or by the Commission independently. In 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.
4. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including initial versions of EOP-001, EOP-002, and EOP-003.
5. NERC submitted three related petitions that we address together in this Final Rule.
6. On December 29, 2014, NERC filed a petition seeking Commission approval of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, a revised definition of “Energy Emergency” and the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, effective date and implementation plan. NERC stated that the purpose of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 is “to address the effects of operating Emergencies by ensuring each Transmission Operator and Balancing Authority has developed Operating Plans to mitigate operating Emergencies, and that those plans are coordinated within a Reliability Coordinator area.”
7. NERC noted that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, Requirements R2 and R6 incorporate Attachment 1, which describes three Energy Emergency levels used by the reliability coordinator and the process for communicating the condition of a balancing authority experiencing an Energy Emergency.
8. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 includes six requirements, and is applicable to balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission operators. Requirement R1 requires transmission operators to develop, maintain and implement reliability coordinator-reviewed operating plans to mitigate operating emergencies in its “transmission operating area.”
9. Requirement R2 requires balancing authorities to develop, maintain and implement reliability coordinator-reviewed operating plans to mitigate capacity and energy emergencies in its “balancing authority area.” Similar to the operating plans developed by transmission operators pursuant to the first requirement, the elements of the operating plans developed by balancing authorities allow for flexibility, provided an explanation is provided for omitted elements.
10. Requirement R3 requires reliability coordinators to review the operating plans submitted by transmission operators and balancing authorities and is designed to ensure that there is appropriate coordination of reliability risks identified in the operating plans. In reviewing operating plans, reliability coordinators shall consider compatibility, coordination
11. Requirement R4 requires transmission operators and balancing authorities to resolve any issues identified by the reliability coordinator and resubmit their revised operating plans within a time period specified by the reliability coordinator. Requirement R5 requires reliability coordinators to notify balancing authorities and transmission operators in its area, and neighboring reliability coordinators, within 30 minutes of receiving an emergency notification. Requirement R6 requires a reliability coordinator with a balancing authority experiencing a potential or actual Energy Emergency to declare an Energy Emergency alert in accordance with Attachment 1.
12. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 also includes the following revised definition of Energy Emergency:
Energy Emergency—A condition when a Load-Serving Entity or Balancing Authority has exhausted all other resource options and can no longer meet its expected Load obligations.
13. NERC proposed an effective date for Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 that is the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months after the date of Commission approval, and a retirement date for currently-effective Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-002-3.1 and EOP-003-2 of midnight of the day immediately prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1.
14. On February 6, 2015, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding), a revised definition of Undervoltage Load Shedding Program (UVLS Program) for inclusion in the NERC Glossary, and the associated violation risk factors, violation severity levels, effective date and implementation plan. NERC also proposed the retirement of four PRC Reliability Standards.
15. NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 is a single, comprehensive standard that addresses the same reliability principles outlined in the four currently-effective UVLS-related Reliability Standards.
16. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 incorporates a new definition of UVLS Program, which reads:
Undervoltage Load Shedding Program (UVLS Program): An automatic load shedding program, consisting of distributed relays and controls, used to mitigate undervoltage conditions impacting the Bulk Electric System (BES), leading to voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading. Centrally controlled undervoltage-based load shedding is not included.
17. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 applies to planning coordinators and transmission planners because “either may be responsible for designing and coordinating the UVLS Program . . . [and] also applies to Distribution Providers and Transmission Owners responsible for the ownership, operation and control of UVLS equipment as required by the UVLS Program established by the Transmission Planner or Planning Coordinator.”
18. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 “applies only after an entity has determined the need for a UVLS Program as a result of its own planning studies.”
19. Requirement R1 requires each planning coordinator or transmission planner to evaluate the viability and effectiveness of its UVLS program before implementation to confirm its effectiveness in resolving the undervoltage conditions for which it
20. Requirement R3 requires each planning coordinator or transmission planner to perform periodic comprehensive assessments at least every 60 calendar months to ensure continued effectiveness of the UVLS program, including whether the program resolves identified undervoltage issues and that it is integrated and coordinated with generator voltage ride-through capabilities and other specified protection and control systems. Requirement R4 requires each planning coordinator or transmission planner to commence a timely assessment of a voltage excursion subject to the UVLS Program, within 12 calendar months of the event, to evaluate whether the UVLS Program resolved the undervoltage issues associated with the event. Requirement R5 requires a corrective action plan for any program deficiencies identified during an assessment performed under either Requirement R3 or R4, and provide an implementation schedule to UVLS entities within three calendar months of its completion.
21. Pursuant to Requirement R6, a planning coordinator must update the data necessary to model its UVLS Program for use in event analyses and program assessments at least each calendar year. Requirement R7 requires each UVLS entity to provide data to its planning coordinator, according to the planning coordinator's format and schedule, to support maintenance of the UVLS Program database. Requirement R8 requires a planning coordinator to provide its UVLS Program database to other planning coordinators and transmission planners within its Interconnection, and other functional entities with a reliability need, within 30 calendar days of a written request.
22. NERC proposed an effective date for Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 and the definition of UVLS Program of the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months after the date that the standard and definition are approved by the Commission. NERC proposed to retire PRC-010-0, PRC-020-1, PRC-021-1, and PRC-022-1 at midnight of the day immediately prior to the effective date of PRC-010-1.
23. On February 3, 2015, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of a revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme in the NERC Glossary, as well as modified Reliability Standards that incorporate the new Remedial Action Scheme definition and eliminate use of the term Special Protection System, and the associated implementation plan.
24. NERC explained that the revised Remedial Action Scheme definition consists of a “core” definition, including a list of objectives and a separate list of exclusions for certain schemes or systems not intended to be covered by the revised definition.
A scheme designed to detect predetermined system conditions and automatically take corrective actions that may include, but are not limited to, adjusting or tripping generation (MW and Mvar), tripping load, or reconfiguring a System(s). (sic) RAS accomplish objectives such as:
• Meet requirements identified in the NERC Reliability Standards;
• Maintain Bulk Electric System (BES) stability;
• Maintain acceptable BES voltages;
• Maintain acceptable BES power flows;
• Limit the impact of Cascading or extreme events.
The definition then lists fourteen exclusions, describing specific schemes and systems that do not constitute a Remedial Action Scheme, because each is either a protection function, a control function, a combination of both, or used for system configuration.
25. In the implementation plan, NERC proposed an effective date for the revised Reliability Standards and the revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months after Commission approval.
26. On June 18, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve the Reliability Standards and NERC Glossary definitions set forth in NERC's three petitions pertaining to EOP-011-1, PRC-010-1 and a revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest.
27. The Commission proposed to approve the retirement of Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-002-3.1, EOP-003-2, PRC-010-0, PRC-020-1 and PRC-021-1. However, the Commission expressed concerns about whether it was appropriate to retire PRC-022-1 before a replacement Reliability Standard is approved and implemented to address the potential misoperation of UVLS equipment. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to deny NERC's request to retire Reliability Standard PRC-022-1 concurrent with the effective date of PRC-010-1.
28. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 provide greater clarity and that the consolidation of currently-effective EOP and PRC standards provides additional efficiencies for responsible entities. The Commission also agreed with NERC that the new definition of Remedial Action Scheme will improve reliability by eliminating ambiguity and encouraging the consistent identification of Remedial Action Schemes and a more consistent application of related Reliability Standards.
29. While the Commission proposed to approve Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, the Commission raised questions and sought clarification regarding an example of a “BES subsystem” that NERC provided in the “Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition.” The Commission indicated that, depending on the response from NERC and others, a directive for further modification may be appropriate.
30. In response to the NOPR, the Commission received comments from: NERC, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Peak Reliability, Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS), International Transmission Company (ITC), Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company (LG&E/KU) and Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power).
31. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), we approve Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1, the revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme and NERC Glossary definitions, and associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels and implementation plans as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. The Commission believes that the modified Reliability Standards provide greater clarity, and the consolidated EOP and PRC standards will provide additional efficiencies for responsible entities. We also determine that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 adequately addresses seven Order No. 693 directives, and that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 establishes an integrated and coordinated approach to the design, evaluation and reliable operation of UVLS Programs, and therefore satisfies the Commission directive issued in Order No. 693.
32. We discuss below the following issues raised in the NOPR and comments: (1) The deregistration of load-serving entities and Reliability Standard EOP-011-1; (2) the scheduling and scope of reliability coordinator reviews of Operating Plans under Reliability Standard EOP-011-1; (3) the retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-022-1; (4) the term “BES subsystem” and related diagram in NERC's PRC Petition; and (5) other issues raised by commenters.
33. In the NOPR, while proposing to approve Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 and a new Energy Emergency definition, the Commission stated that the removal of load-serving entities from the Reliability Standard raises questions about who would perform the roles traditionally performed by load-serving entities.
34. NERC, EEI, TAPS, ITC and Idaho Power support the Commission's proposed approval of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1. Further, NERC, EEI and TAPS state that excluding load-serving entities from the Reliability Standard will not create a reliability gap. NERC states that currently-effective Reliability Standard EOP-002-3.1 Requirement R9 is the only requirement in the three Reliability Standards being replaced by Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 that applies to load-serving entities. NERC explains that the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) has modified the process for E-tag specifications, removing the load-serving entities' role in making changes to the priority of transmission service requests. Therefore, the “Standard Drafting Team did not incorporate Requirement R9 into Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, because Requirement R9 has become obsolete due to technological changes.”
35. Additionally, NERC explains that, due to the Real-time nature of energy emergencies, balancing authorities and distribution providers will handle responsibilities related to Reliability Standard EOP-002-3.1 that have been performed by load-serving entities. Referring to the Mapping Document and Application Guidelines for Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, NERC states that “LSEs have no Real-time reliability
36. TAPS and EEI agree with NERC's analysis of the roles and responsibilities of load-serving entities and that excluding them will not create any reliability gaps. TAPS states that “there is no reliability benefit to retaining EOP-002-3.1's Requirement R9, and thus no reliability risk from eliminating the LSE obligation to comply with it.”
37. LG&E/KU seeks clarification on two questions pertaining to the exclusion of load-serving entities from Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 “to ensure that even if NERC's EOP proposal is accepted, [balancing authorities] will have a meaningful way of addressing any operational gaps with Energy Emergencies and LSEs.”
38. Consistent with our determination in the “risk-based registration” proceeding, we find that the elimination of load-serving entities from Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 will not prevent the Reliability Standard from achieving its stated purposes or otherwise create reliability gaps.
39. We disagree with LG&E/KU's suggestion that the reference to load-serving entities in NERC's revised definition of Energy Emergency indicates the possibility of an “operational gap.” NERC revises the definition of “Energy Emergency,” approved in this Final Rule, as “[a] condition when a Load-Serving Entity or Balancing Authority has exhausted all other resource options and can no longer meet its expected Load obligations.”
40. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, Requirement R3 obligates a reliability coordinator to review the Operating Plan(s) to mitigate operating emergencies submitted by a transmission operator or a balancing authority. Pursuant to Requirement R3.1, a reliability coordinator must, within 30 days of receipt, (i) review each Operating Plan for compatibility and inter-dependency with other transmission operator or balancing authority Operating Plans, (ii) review each Operating Plan for coordination to avoid risk to “Wide Area” reliability, and (iii) notify each transmission operator and balancing authority of the results of the review.
41. Peak Reliability asserts that the “inflexible” 30 day period for reliability coordinator reviews of operating plans in Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 Requirement R3.1 is not reasonable. According to Peak Reliability, because transmission operators have an “open ended” opportunity to submit operating plans under the provision, reliability coordinators cannot schedule in advance the needed resources to perform a proper review in the 30-day window. Peak Reliability notes that, in its experience, many entities update their plans at the end of the year, creating a large spike in review work at that time. Peak Reliability, therefore, recommends revising Requirement R3.1 to include language requiring “a mutually agreed predetermined schedule” to ensure that the reliability coordinator can efficiently allocate its
42. Peak Reliability also seeks clarification regarding the scope of reliability coordinator review of operating plans, and whether a reliability coordinator must review each required element of an operating plan specified in Requirement R2 for “compatibility and interdependency” with other balancing authority and transmission operator operating plans, or “evaluate these elements on a higher level.”
43. We are not persuaded by Peak Reliability's comments that the 30 day review period in Requirement R3.1 is unduly onerous. No reliability coordinator other than Peak Reliability expressed concern about the 30 day review period for operating plans in Requirement R3.1. NERC explains that transmission operators and balancing authorities must update their operating plans on an “ongoing and as-needed basis.”
44. Additionally, we believe that Peak Reliability's concern regarding the extent of reliability coordinator Operating Plan review for “compatibility and interdependency” under Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 Requirement 3.1.1 is misplaced. Based on the record before us, particularly the Standard Drafting Team's decision to require reliability coordinators to review rather than approve operating plans, and the ongoing nature of emergency planning, we conclude that Requirement R3.1.1 contemplates high level assessments focused on the coordination of operating plans between and among transmission operators and balancing authorities.
45. In the NOPR, while proposing to approve Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 and the retirement of PRC-010-0, PRC-020-1 and PRC-021-1, the Commission was not persuaded that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirement R4 is an adequate replacement for currently-effective PRC-022-1, which contains requirements specifically addressing misoperations. Rather, the Commission proposed that Reliability Standard PRC-022-1 would remain in effect until an acceptable replacement Reliability Standard is in place to address the potential misoperation of UVLS equipment.
46. NERC states that, on June 9, 2015, it filed proposed Reliability Standards PRC-010-2 and PRC-004-5 as part of its UVLS Phase II Petition (Project 2008-02.2), which includes requirements and applicability criteria related to UVLS misoperations.
47. We agree with NERC and EEI that the Delegated Letter Order approval of Reliability Standards PRC-004-5 and PRC-010-2 in Docket No. RD15-5-000 concurrent with this Final Rule precludes the need to retain currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-022-1.
48. In the NOPR, the Commission sought clarification of the meaning of NERC's use of the term “BES subsystem” in a diagram illustrating a UVLS system that would not be included in the definition of UVLS Program if the consequences of the contingency do not impact the bulk electric system, and whether it would be considered a Remedial Action Scheme.
49. NERC comments that the term “BES subsystem” and accompanying diagram are “intended to demonstrate that whether PRC-010-1 applies to a UVLS system depends on whether the UVLS system is used to mitigate undervoltage conditions impacting areas of the BES, leading to voltage instability, voltage collapse or Cascading.”
50. NERC explains that the diagram “is not intended to necessarily illustrate a centrally controlled UVLS (considered a [Remedial Action Scheme]), but to illustrate how Registered Entities should evaluate whether the term UVLS Program and proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 applies to a UVLS system.”
51. EEI states that the example of “BES subsystem” in the “Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition” does not represent a centrally controlled UVLS and therefore would not be considered a Remedial Action Scheme. EEI explains that the term UVLS Program “is for a scheme that consists of distributed relays and controls, not for a scheme that is centrally controlled. The key point is that for a UVLS system to fall under the definition of Undervoltage Load Shedding Program, it must be used to protect the BES against voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading.”
52. Based on the explanations provided above, we determine that a directive for further modification of the example of “BES subsystem” and related diagram in NERC's “Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition” to ensure consistency with the Commission-approved definition of “bulk electric system” proposed in the NOPR is not necessary. Rather, we are persuaded that EEI's concern with the diagram is addressed by NERC's explanation that, depending on the role of a particular UVLS system, the diagram could illustrate an example of a UVLS Program or a centrally-controlled Remedial Action Scheme.
53. Peak Reliability asserts that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 “does not adequately address the operation of UVLS Programs, as it does not apply to the NERC functional entities that operate the Bulk Electric System,” particularly, reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities.
54. We are not persuaded by Peak Reliability's assertion that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 should apply to reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities. Rather, as NERC explains “[t]he applicability includes both the Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner because either may be responsible for designing and coordinating the UVLS Program. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 also applies to Distribution Providers and Transmission Owners responsible for the ownership, operation and control of UVLS equipment as required by the UVLS Program established by the Transmission Planner and Planning Coordinator.”
55. While Peak Reliability seeks to expand applicability to functional entities so that UVLS Program databases would be shared with reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities, we believe that this need to expand applicability is unfounded. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirement R8, provides that other functional entities with a reliability need can request UVLS data, and that such requests must be answered in 30 days.
56. Nor are we persuaded by Peak Reliability's argument that UVLS programs should be considered in operations planning and real-time operations. We understand that Peak Reliability refers to the consideration of UVLS programs in the derivation of Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits (IROLs) for Category B contingencies as defined in the currently-effective transmission planning standard TPL-002-0b (commonly known as N-1 contingencies under normal system operation).
57. Peak Reliability comments that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 “creates some confusion of the applicability of UVLS Programs due to the similarities, and apparent overlap, in the definitions of UVLS Programs and IROLs.”
58. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirements R3, R4, and R5 obligate planning coordinators and transmission planners to perform an assessment of their UVLS program in various circumstances. Idaho Power contends that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirements R3, R4, and R5, do not “specifically state what must be included in the assessment, as was included in PRC-022-1 R1.1-4” and, therefore, do not sufficiently explain what applicable entities must include in UVLS Program assessments.
59. We disagree with Idaho Power. Reliability Standard PRC-022-1 requires applicable entities to “analyze and document all UVLS operations and misoperations,” and specifically mentions set points and tripping times and a summary of the findings. In contrast, Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 Requirement R3, requires planning coordinators and transmission planners to perform comprehensive assessments of their UVLS Programs at least once every 5 years. Each assessment “shall include, but is not limited to, studies and analyses that evaluate whether . . . the UVLS Program resolves the identified undervoltage issues for which the UVLS Program is designed [and] the UVLS Program is integrated through coordination with generator voltage ride-through capabilities and other protection and control systems.” Requirement R4 requires applicable entities to assess whether UVLS programs resolve undervoltage issues associated with voltage excursions triggering UVLS programs. Pursuant to Requirement R5, planning coordinators and transmission planners must develop a corrective action plan to address UVLS program deficiencies identified during assessments performed under Requirements R3 and R4. We conclude that the comprehensive nature of the assessments required under Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 is sufficient, and precludes the need to include the specific items listed in PRC-022-1, Requirement R1.
60. ITC supports the approval of the revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme. ITC points out that NERC proposes to move to a single definition, Remedial Action Scheme, to eliminate the use of two terms,
61. We deny ITC's request that the Commission direct NERC to remove the definition of “Special Protection System” from the NERC Glossary. In its RAS Petition, NERC states that it “will continue to modify the NERC Reliability Standards until all of them reference only the defined term Remedial Action Scheme. At that time, the definition of Special Protection System will be retired.”
62. The collection of information contained in this Final Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
63. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. The NOPR solicited comments on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the use of automated information techniques. No comments were received.
64.
65. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 replaces a combined total of 40 requirements or subparts that are found in Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-003.1 and EOP-003-2. These three Reliability Standards are to be retired, concurrent with the effective date of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1. Accordingly, the requirements in Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 do not create any new burdens for applicable balancing authorities or transmission operators because the requirements in Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 are already burdens or tasks imposed on this set of registered entities by Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-003.1 and EOP-003-2 under FERC-725A (1902-0244).
66. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 requires reliability coordinators to perform the additional tasks of reviewing, correcting, and coordinating their balancing authorities' and transmission operators' operating procedures for emergency conditions. The Commission estimates that this will add approximately 1,500 man-hours per
67.
FERC-725G4, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding).
FERC-725S, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 (Emergency Operations).
68.
69. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email:
70. Comments concerning the information collections in this Final Rule and the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address:
71. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
72. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 is expected to impose an additional burden on 11 entities (reliability coordinators). The remaining 434 entities (balancing authorities and transmission operators and a combination thereof) will maintain the existing levels of burden. Comparison of the applicable entities with FERC's small business data indicates that approximately 7 of the 11 entities are small entities, or 63.63 percent of the respondents affected by this Reliability Standard.
73. On average, each small entity affected may have a one-time cost of $92,387 representing a one-time review of the program for each entity, consisting of 1,500 man-hours at $66.35/hour (for engineer wages) and $30.66/hour (for record clerks), as explained above in the information collection statement.
74. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 is expected to impose an additional burden on 26 entities (distribution providers and transmission providers or a combination thereof). Comparison of the applicable entities with FERC's small business data indicates that approximately 8 of the 26 entities are small entities, or 30.77 percent of the respondents affected by this Reliability Standard.
75. On average, each small entity affected may have a cost of $1,960, representing a one-time review of the program for each entity, consisting of 36 man-hours at $66.35/hour (for engineer wages) and $30.66/hour (for record clerks), as explained above in the information collection statement. Regarding the revisions to the Remedial Action Scheme definition and the related Reliability Standards including the revised definition, as discussed above, the Commission estimates that proposals will have no cost impact on applicable entities, including any small entities.
76. The Commission estimates that Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 in this Final Rule impose an additional burden on a total of 37 entities. FERC's small business data indicates that 15 of the 37 respondents are small entities, or 40.54 percent of the respondents affected by these proposed Reliability Standards. On average, each small entity affected may have a cost of $92,387 and $1,960 (EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 respectively), representing a one-time review of the program for each entity. We do not consider these costs to be a significant economic impact on small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
77. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
78. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
79. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
80. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
81. This Final Rule is effective January 25, 2016. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
By the Commission.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Final rule; Treasury decision.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the approximately 49,815-acre “Eagle Foothills” viticultural area in Gem and Ada Counties in Idaho. The viticultural area lies entirely within the established Snake River Valley viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.
This final rule is effective December 28, 2015.
Dominique Christianson, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 278.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Martha Cunningham, owner of the 3 Horse Ranch Vineyards, on behalf of the local grape growers and vintners, proposing the establishment of the “Eagle Foothills” AVA in Gem and Ada Counties, Idaho. The proposed AVA is immediately north of the city of Eagle and is approximately 10 miles northwest of the city of Boise. The Eagle Foothills AVA is located entirely within the established Snake River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.208) and does not overlap with any other existing or proposed AVA. The original proposed name for the AVA was “Willow Creek Idaho.” However, TTB determined that the petition did not sufficiently demonstrate that the region is known by that name. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a request to change the proposed AVA name to “Eagle Foothills.”
The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA contains approximately 49,815 acres, with 9 commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of 67 acres distributed throughout the proposed AVA. The petition states that an additional 4 acres will soon be added to an existing vineyard and that an additional 7 commercial vineyards covering approximately 472 acres are planned within the next few years.
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA are its topography, climate, and soils. The proposed AVA is located within the Unwooded Alkaline Foothills ecoregion of Idaho. This ecoregion is defined as an arid, sparsely populated region of rolling foothills, benches, and alluvial fans underlain by alkaline lake bed deposits. A network of seasonal creeks flowing southwesterly through the proposed AVA have created deep gulches and a rugged terrain that has a variety of slope aspects favorable to the vineyard owners. The elevation within the proposed AVA ranges from 2,490 feet to approximately 3,400 feet, with an average elevation of 2,900 feet.
Compared with the proposed AVA, the Emmett Valley and Payette River Plain to the north are lower, flatter, and have greater population density than the proposed AVA. Due to the lower elevations, the region to the north has a warmer climate and a longer growing season than the proposed AVA. The soils in the region to the north of the proposed AVA are derived from active flood plain alluvium. These soils have a finer, more uniform texture and greater water-holding capacity than the soils of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA.
East of the proposed AVA is the mountainous region known as the Boise Front, which has higher elevations. Due to the higher elevations, the region to the east has a shorter growing season and cooler growing season temperatures than the proposed AVA. The soils of the Boise Front are predominantly composed of granite and volcanic materials and lack the sedimentary materials found in the soils of the proposed AVA.
The Boise River Plain is to the south of the proposed AVA, and this region has lower elevations, shallow slope plains, and a longer growing season than the proposed AVA. The soils in this region are similar to the soils north of the proposed AVA, in that they are derived from flood plain alluvium and are finer than the soils within the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA.
Finally, the region to the west is also within the Boise River Plain which, as mentioned previously, has a lower elevation and warmer temperatures, which provide longer growing seasons than are found within the proposed AVA. Furthermore, when compared to the proposed AVA, the soils in the region to the west are fine-grained and the bedrock has a greater depth.
TTB published Notice No. 150 in the
In Notice No. 150, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA's location within the existing Snake River Valley AVA, TTB solicited comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiate it from the existing Snake River Valley AVA. Finally, TTB requested comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding Snake River Valley AVA that the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA should no longer be part of the established AVA. The comment period closed on June 15, 2015. TTB received no comments in response to Notice No. 150.
After careful review of the petition, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the Eagle Foothills AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Eagle Foothills” AVA in Gem and Ada Counties in Idaho, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.
TTB has also determined that the Eagle Foothills AVA will remain part of the established Snake River Valley AVA. As discussed in Notice No. 150, the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is located along the eastern edge of the Snake River Valley AVA and shares the same broad characteristics of this AVA, in that both regions are semiarid and have vineyards that are planted on slopes to maximize sunlight exposure and minimize the risk of frost. However, the Eagle Foothills AVA receives several more inches of precipitation per year and has a slightly longer growing season. Additionally, the Snake River Valley AVA contains a large variety of diverse soils, unlike the proposed AVA which has fairly uniform soil characteristics throughout.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the Eagle Foothills AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
With the establishment of this AVA, its name, “Eagle Foothills,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Eagle Foothills” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin.
The establishment of the Eagle Foothills AVA will not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “Snake River Valley” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Snake River Valley AVA will not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the Eagle Foothills AVA will allow vintners to use “Eagle Foothills” and “Snake
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Dominique Christianson of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Southwest Emmett, Idaho, 1970;
(2) Southeast Emmett, Idaho, provisional edition 1985;
(3) Pearl, Idaho, provisional edition 1985;
(4) Eagle, Idaho, 1998;
(5) Star, Idaho, 1953; and
(6) Middleton, Idaho, 1958; photorevised 1971.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the Southwest Emmett map at the intersection of the Ada, Gem, and Canyon County lines at the southwestern corner of section 31, T6N/R1W.
(2) From the beginning point, proceed north along the western boundary of sections 31 and 30 to the northwest corner of section 31, T6N/R1W; then
(3) Proceed north-northeast in a straight line to the marked 3,109-foot elevation point near the southwest corner of section 31, T6N/R1W; then
(4) Proceed northeast in a straight line, crossing onto the Southeast Emmett map, to the marked 3,230-foot elevation point in section 22, T6N/R1W; then
(5) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line to the marked 3,258-foot elevation point in section 23, T6N/R1W; then
(6) Proceed easterly in a straight line to the 3,493-foot elevation point in section 23, T6N/R1W; then
(7) Proceed northeast in a straight line to the 3,481-foot elevation point in section 13, T6N/R1W; then
(8) Proceed northeast in a straight line to the intersection of the marked 4-wheel drive trail with the R1W range line; then
(9) Proceed north along the R1W range line to its first intersection with the 3,400-foor elevation contour; then
(10) Proceed east along the meandering 3,400-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Pearl map, then continuing easterly, then southerly, along the meandering 3,400-foot elevation contour, crossing Schiller Creek, the North and South Forks of Willow Creek, and Big Gulch Creek, to the first intersection of the 3,400-foot contour line with the R1E/R2E range line, which forms the eastern boundary of section 13, T5N/R1E; then
(11) Proceed southeast in a straight line to the marked 3,613-foot elevation in point Section 18, T5N/R2E; then
(12) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the marked 3,426-foot elevation point in Section 24, T5N/R1E; then
(13) Proceed west in a straight line to the marked 3,416-foot elevation point in Section 24, T5N/R1E; then
(14) Proceed west in a straight line to the marked 3,119-foot elevation point in Section 23, T5N/R1E; then
(15) Proceed south in a straight line to the marked 3,366-foot elevation point in Section 23, T5N/R1E; then
(16) Proceed southwest in a straight line, crossing onto the Eagle map, to the marked 3,372-foot elevation point in Section 26, T5N/R1E; then
(17) Proceed northwest in a straight line, crossing back onto the Pearl map, to the marked 3,228-foot elevation point in Section 22, T5N/R1E; then
(18) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the marked 3,205-foot elevation point in Section 22, T5N/R1E; then
(19) Proceed south in a straight line, crossing onto the Eagle map, to the marked 3,163-foot elevation point in Section 27, T5N/R1E; then
(20) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the marked 2,958-foot elevation point in Section 28, T5N/R1E; then
(21) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the northeast corner of section 32, T5N/R1E; then
(22) Proceed south along the eastern boundary of Section 32 to the point where the boundary joins Pearl Road, then continue south along Pearl Road to the intersection of the road with Beacon Road; then
(23) Proceed west along Beacon Road, crossing onto the Star map, to the intersection of Beacon Road with an unnamed light-duty road known locally as North Wing Road at the southern boundary of section 32, T5N/R1W; then
(24) Proceed south along North Wing Road to the intersection of the road with New Hope Road in Section 5, T4N/R1W; then
(25) Proceed west along New Hope Road, crossing onto the Middleton map, to the intersection of the road with the Ada-Canyon County line; then
(26) Proceed north along the Ada-Canyon County line, crossing onto the Southwest Emmett map, to the beginning point.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation amends an existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
This regulation is effective November 25, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 25, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0099, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0099 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before January 25, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0099, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA
EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for the reasons contained in the October 15, 2015, document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) considerations for
This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of saflufenacil in or on pomegranate. BASF Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective November 25, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 25, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0640, is available at
Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0640 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before January 25, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0640, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The effects observed following repeated oral exposures to saflufenacil are consistent with the proposed mode of toxicity involving inhibition of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) in mammals, resulting in disruption of heme biosynthesis. Toxicological effects from subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in rats, mice and dogs consisted of decreased hematological parameters (RBC, Ht, MCV, MCH, and MCHC) at approximately the same dose level (13-39 mg/kg/day), except in the case of the dog, where the effects were seen at a slightly higher dose (50-100 mg/kg/day). In line with the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) findings suggesting that male rats achieve a greater systemic exposure than females, males were the most sensitive sex in mice and rats, with LOAELs approximately 3-4X lower than their female counterparts. The hematological effects resulting from oral exposures to saflufenacil occurred around the same dose level from short- through long-term exposures without increasing in severity. Toxic effects were also seen in the liver (increased organ weight, centrilobular fatty change, lymphoid infiltrate) in mice, the spleen (increased organ weight and extramedullary hematopoiesis) in rats, and in both of these organs (increased iron storage in the liver and extramedullary hematopoiesis in the spleen) in dogs. These effects also occurred around the same dose level from short- through long-term exposures without a progression in severity.
Evidence for increased pre- and/or postnatal susceptibility was noted from the developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and in the 2-generation reproduction study in the rat. Decreased fetal body weights and increased skeletal variations occurred at doses (20 mg/kg/day) that were not maternally toxic in the developmental study in rats. Similarly, in rabbits, increased liver porphyrins in fetuses were observed at doses (200 mg/kg/day) that were not maternally toxic. In the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats, there was evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility based on an increased number of stillborn pups, decreased pup viability and lactation indices, decreased pre-weaning body-weight and/or body-weight gain, and changes in hematological parameters at the same dose level as less severe maternal effects consisting of decrements in food intake, body-weight, body-weight gain, and changes in organ weights and hematological parameters indicative of anemia.
In an acute neurotoxicity (ACN) study in rats, a decrease in motor activity was observed on the day of dosing at the limit dose (2,000 mg/kg/day) in males only. However, the finding was not accompanied by any neuropathological changes and was considered a reflection of a mild and transient general systemic toxicity and not a substance-specific neurotoxic effect. In the subchronic neurotoxicity (SCN) study, systemic toxicity (anemia) was seen at 1,000 ppm (66.2 mg/kg/day) and 1,350 ppm (101 mg/kg/day) in males and females, respectively. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in either the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity study.
In a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats, saflufenacil did not induce any type of dermal or systemic toxicity up to the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg bw/day.
Based on the results of acute toxicity studies, saflufenacil was ranked low for acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation route of exposure. It was not classified as a dermal irritant or dermal sensitizer.
In a 28-day immunotoxicity study in mice, saflufenacil failed to induce toxicity specific to the immune system at the highest dose tested (
Saflufenacil was weakly clastogenic in the
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by saflufenacil as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for saflufenacil used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
Such effects were identified for saflufenacil. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA used an unrefined approach by assuming that 100% of the crop is treated and that residues are present at the tolerance-level or at tolerance-levels adjusted to account for the residues of concern for risk assessment for all foods. EPA also used default processing factors using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 7.8.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of saflufenacil for acute exposures are estimated to be 133 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 69.2 ppb for ground water.
The EDWCs for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 120 ppb for surface water and 51.5 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 133 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 120 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Saflufenacil is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.
4.
EPA has not found saflufenacil to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and saflufenacil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that saflufenacil does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for saflufenacil is complete.
ii. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity study. The decrease in motor activity observed in the acute neurotoxicity study on the day of dosing at the limit dose (2,000 mg/kg/day) in males is considered a reflection of a mild and transient general systemic toxicity and not a substance-specific neurotoxic effect. No neurotoxic effects were seen in the sub-chronic neurotoxicity study.
iii. The concern for increased susceptibility following prenatal or postnatal exposure is low because clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for the developmental effects seen in rats and rabbits as well as for the offspring effects seen in the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study. Further, the dose-response relationship for the effects of concern are also well characterized and being used for assessing risks. The POD for risk assessments would be protective of the developmental and offspring effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to saflufenacil in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by saflufenacil.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LC/MS/MS) Method D0603/02) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for saflufenacil on pomegranate. Therefore, harmonization of MRLs and U.S. tolerances is not an issue at this time.
EPA received two comments to the docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0640; however, only one of these public submissions was in response to the Notice of Filing for PP# 4F8305, while the remaining comment pertained to an unrelated petition in the
EPA agrees with the commenter and will continue to regulate pesticides
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of saflufenacil, (2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide) and its metabolites, in or on pomegranate at 0.03 ppm.
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * * (1) * * *
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Final rule.
With this action, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) removes its regulations pertaining to fees for direct training in occupational safety and health conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). As a part of the retrospective review conducted by all Federal agencies, HHS has determined that these regulations are no longer in use by NIOSH and should be removed.
This rule is effective on November 25, 2015.
Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090 Tusculum Ave., MS: C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855)818-1629 (this is a toll-free number); email
In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on August 13, 2015 (80 FR 48473), HHS invited interested persons or organizations to submit written views, recommendations, and data regarding the removal of part 80. We received no comments on this rule.
HHS promulgated part 80 of title 42 to facilitate Section 21(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 670(a)(1)), which authorizes the Director of NIOSH to conduct educational programs to provide an adequate supply of qualified personnel to carry out the purposes of the OSH Act. Part 80 established tuition fees for such training, as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 483a (31 U.S.C. 9701, as revised by Public Law 97-258, September 13, 1982), which permits agencies to “prescribe regulations establishing the charge for service or thing of value provided by the agency.” In accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13563, HHS conducted a retrospective analysis of its existing rules, determined Part 80 to be obsolete, and is hereby removing Part 80 from Title 42.
The provisions in Part 80 establish the NIOSH policies with respect to the charging of fees for direct training in occupational safety and health. Because NIOSH no longer offers direct training programs, these provisions are no longer needed. Removing Part 80 from Title 42 will have no effect on NIOSH procedures or practices, including the NIOSH funding of the Education and Research Centers for Occupational Safety and Health. This action is being done in accordance with Executive Order 13563, section 6, which requires that Federal agencies conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules. In conducting the analysis, HHS discovered that the Part 80 provisions were outdated.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This final rule has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. With this action, HHS is removing part 80 from title 42. Because this final rule is entirely administrative and does not affect the economic impact, cost, or policies of any activities authorized by title 42, HHS has not prepared an economic analysis and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rulemaking.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
As required by Congress under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531
This final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” and will not unduly burden the Federal court system. This rule has been reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities.
HHS has reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The rule does not “have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
In accordance with Executive Order 13045, HHS has evaluated the environmental health and safety effects of this final rule on children. HHS has determined that the rule would have no environmental health and safety effect on children.
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, HHS has evaluated the effects of this final rule on energy supply, distribution or use, and has determined that the rule will not have a significant adverse effect.
Under Public Law 111-274 (October 13, 2010), executive Departments and Agencies are required to use plain language in documents that explain to the public how to comply with a requirement the Federal Government administers or enforces. HHS has attempted to use plain language in promulgating the final rule consistent with the Federal Plain Writing Act guidelines.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble and under the authorities 29 U.S.C. 671, 31 U.S.C. 9701, and 42 U.S.C. 216(b), the Department of Health and Human Services amends 42 CFR chapter I by removing part 80.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's
47 CFR 96.17(d); 96.21(a)(3); 96.23(b); 96.33(b); 96.35(e); 96.39(a), (c)-(g); 96.41(d)(1); 96.43(b); 96.45(b); 96.45(d), 96.51; 96.57(a)-(c); 96.59(a); 96.61; 96.63; and 96.67(b)-(c), published at 80 FR 36163, June 23, 2015, are effective on December 16, 2015.
Cathy Williams,
This document announces that, on November 9, 2015, OMB approved the revised information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on November 9, 2015, for the revised information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 96.17; 96.21; 96.23; 96.33; 96.35; 96.39; 96.41; 96.43; 96.45; 96.51; 96.57; 96.59; 96.61; 96.63; and 96.67. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers is 3060-1211.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Final rule.
NASA is issuing a final rule to amend the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to revise a clause related to safety and health measures and mishaps reporting, reduce burden on contractors, and to provide guidance on specific safety and health measures that the contractor must take when working on a Federal facility, and the remedies the Government may take for failure to maintain an effective safety and health program. The revision is part of NASA's retrospective plan under Executive Order (EO) 13563 completed in August 2011.
Effective: December 28, 2015.
Marilyn E. Chambers, NASA, Office of Procurement, telephone 202.358.5154.
NASA published a proposed rule in the
Paragraph (b) of the clause lists safety and occupational health measures, recognized by the Office of Safety and Health Administration and industry, as standards for both identifying workplace hazards and for developing a plan for prevention and control of those hazards. These measures include maintaining an effective worksite safety and health program with organized and systematic methods to—
1. Comply with Federal, State, and local safety and occupational health laws and with the safety and occupational health requirements of the contract;
2. Describe and assign the responsibilities of managers, supervisors, and employees;
3. Inspect regularly for and identify, evaluate, prevent, and control hazards;
4. Orient and train employees to eliminate or avoid hazards; and
5. Periodically review the program's effectiveness. Additionally, paragraph (b) added text concerning authorized Government representatives' rights to have access to and to examine the work site and related records under the contract in order to determine the adequacy of the Contractor's safety and occupational health measures. Paragraph (d) refers to NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8621.1, Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping, which contains a listing and description of the types of mishaps (types A, B, C, or D) or close calls the contractor must report to the contracting officer. Paragraph (e) requires contractors to cooperate with any Government-authorized investigation by providing access to their employees and relevant information in their possession regarding the mishap or close call. Paragraph (f) states the Contracting Officer may notify the Contractor of any noncompliance with the health and safety requirements of the contract and require corrective action. If the contractor fails or refuses to take prompt corrective action, the Contracting Officer may—
(1) Invoke the stop-work order clause;
(2) Require the Contractor to remove and replace Contractor or subcontractor personnel who fail to comply with or violate applicable requirements;
(3) Record the Contractor's failure to comply in the appropriate databases of past performance; and
(4) Consider the Contractor's failure to comply in any responsibility determination or evaluation of past performance.
Paragraph (g) requires the prime contractor to include the clause in subcontracts over the simplified acquisition threshold when the work will be conducted completely or partly on federally-controlled facilities.
No public comments were received in response to the proposed rule. However, during internal deliberations a couple of minor changes were made. Section 1801.106(1) was revised to add new OMB control number 2700-1060, which was assigned for reporting requirements at NFS 1852.223-70. Additionally, paragraph (f)(1) of 1852.223-70 was revised to change the phrase “the Contracting Officer shall” to “the Contracting Officer will” and to remove the term “any necessary.” Paragraph (f) (2) was revised to remove “in addition to other remedies available to the Government” and add “the contracting officer may” with a list of four actions, previously listed in the proposed rule, enumerated and rephrased to clearly list the action to be taken: “invoke,” “require,” “record,” and “consider.” No other revisions were made to the proposed rule.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
NASA has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This rule revises NFS clause 1852.223-70 to reduce burden on contractors by (1) changing the applicability of the clause to only contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold and to only those performed on Federal facilities, and (2) by removing reporting requirements relating to mishap investigations and health and safety plans. The clause also provides guidance on specific safety and health measures the contractor must take when working on a Federal facility, and the remedies the Government may take for failure to maintain an effective safety and health program.
No comments were received on the initial regulatory flexibility analysis from small business concerns or other interested parties.
This rule will apply to small entities performing NASA contracts with an estimated value over the simplified acquisition threshold on Federal Facilities. The System for Award Management (SAM) data shows approximately 154 firms received contracts to which this clause will apply. Of those 154 firms, 84 were small businesses.
Two reporting requirements are contained in the rule. One is to notify the contracting officer of mishaps (types A, B, C, or D) or close calls as described in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8621.1, Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping. The other is to provide a quarterly report on the number of mishaps, specifying lost time frequency rate, number of lost time injuries, exposure, and accident/incident dollar losses. This information is collected so that NASA can analyze mishap data to look for mishap trends and determine ways to improve the safety of its workforce and high-value assets and reduce the risk to its missions. This mishap information would be initially collected by a company manager or supervisor. It may be reviewed by the firm's official responsible for safety, usually an occupational health and safety. Lost time frequency rate, number of lost time injuries, exposure, and accident/incident dollar losses reports would be prepared by a safety official.
The revisions to NFS clause 1852.223-70 are designed to reduce burden on contractors by reducing the applicability of the clause and reducing the paperwork burden. The information requested in the clause is essential to the NASA health and safety program. Further and differing compliance alternatives or reporting requirements or timetables for small entities are not feasible. Having an effective safety program is crucial to all businesses as it
The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). OMB has cleared this information collection requirement under OMB Control Number 2700-0160, titled: Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting.
Government procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1801, 1823 and 1852 are amended as follows:
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(1)
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(a) Insert the clause at 1852.223-70, Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting, in solicitations and contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold when the work will be conducted completely or partly on federally-controlled facilities.
(b) The clause prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section may be excluded with the approval of the installation official(s) responsible for matters of safety and occupational health.
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
As prescribed in 1823.7001(a), insert the following clause:
SAFETY AND HEALTH MEASURES AND MISHAP REPORTING (DEC 2015)
(a) Safety is the freedom from those conditions that can cause death, injury, occupational illness, damage to or loss of equipment or property, or damage to the environment. NASA's safety priority is to protect: (1) The public, (2) astronauts and pilots, (3) the NASA workforce (including contractor employees working on NASA contracts), and (4) high-value equipment and property.
(b) The Contractor shall take all reasonable safety and occupational health measures in performing this contract. The Contractor shall maintain an effective worksite safety and health program with organized and systematic methods to—
(1) Comply with Federal, State, and local safety and occupational health laws and with the safety and occupational health requirements of this contract;
(2) Describe and assign the responsibilities of managers, supervisors, and employees;
(3) Inspect regularly for and identify, evaluate, prevent, and control hazards;
(4) Orient and train employees to eliminate or avoid hazards; and
(5) Periodically review the program's effectiveness. Authorized Government representatives shall have access to and the right to examine the work site and related records under this Contract in order to determine the adequacy of the Contractor's safety and occupational health measures.
(c) The Contractor shall take, or cause to be taken, any other safety, and occupational health-measures the Contracting Officer may reasonably direct. To the extent that the Contractor may be entitled to an equitable adjustment for those measures under the terms and conditions of this contract, the equitable adjustment shall be determined pursuant to the procedures of the changes clause of this contract; provided, that no adjustment shall be made under this Safety and Health clause for any change for which an equitable adjustment is expressly provided under any other clause of the contract.
(d) The Contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer or a designee any Type A, B, C, or D Mishap, or close calls as defined in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8621.1, Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping. In addition, service contractors (excluding construction contracts) shall provide quarterly reports specifying lost-time frequency rate, number of lost-time injuries, exposure, and accident/incident dollar losses as specified in the contract Schedule.
(e) The Contractor shall cooperate with any Government-authorized investigation of Type A, B, C, or D Mishaps, or Close Calls reported pursuant to paragraph (d) of this clause by providing access to employees; and relevant information in the possession of the Contractor regarding the mishap or close call.
(f)(1) The Contracting Officer may notify the Contractor of any noncompliance with this clause and specify corrective actions to be taken. When the Contracting Officer becomes aware of noncompliance that may pose a serious or imminent danger to safety and health of the public, astronauts and pilots, the NASA workforce (including contractor employees working on NASA contracts), or high value mission critical equipment or property, the Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor orally, with written confirmation. The Contractor shall promptly take corrective action.
(2) If the Contractor fails or refuses to institute prompt corrective action in accordance with subparagraph (f)(1) of this clause, the Contracting Officer may—
(i) Invoke the stop-work order clause in this contract;
(ii) Require the Contractor to remove and replace Contractor or subcontractor personnel who fail to comply with or violate applicable requirements of this clause;
(iii) Record the Contractor's failure to comply in the appropriate databases of past performance; and
(iv) Consider the Contractor's failure to comply in any responsibility determination or evaluation of past performance.
(g) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (g) in all subcontracts above the simplified acquisition threshold when the work will be conducted completely or partly on federally-controlled facilities.
(End of clause)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Final rule.
NASA has adopted as final, without change, an interim rule amending the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) to increase the NASA capitalization threshold from $100,000 to $500,000.
Andrew O'Rourke, telephone 202-358-4560.
NASA published an interim rule in the
There were no public comments submitted in response to the interim rule. The interim rule has been converted to a final rule, without change.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
NASA does not expect this final rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The increase in the NASA capitalization threshold is expected to benefit NASA contractors by reducing the administrative burden associated with financial reporting of NASA property in the custody of contractors. The legal basis for this rule is 51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
The requirements under this rule will apply to any contract award (including contracts for supplies, services, construction, and major systems) that requires the use of Government property by contractors. According to NASA Property Records in FY 2014 there were 568 contracts that required reporting of Government property by NASA contractors. Of the 568 contracts, it is estimated that approximately 20% or 114 contracts were small businesses.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternatives were identified that would meet the objectives of the rule.
The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35; however, these changes to the NFS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 2700-0017, entitled NASA Property In the Custody of Contractors and OMB Control No. 9000-0075, entitled Government Property.
Government procurement.
Department of Homeland Security; Department of Agriculture; Department of Energy; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Department of Commerce; Social Security Administration; Agency for International Development; Department of Justice; Department of Labor;Department of Defense; Department of Education; Department of Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Health and Human Services; National Science Foundation; and Department of Transportation.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Health and Human Services and the other Federal Departments and Agencies listed in this document are extending the comment period on the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects notice of proposed rulemaking. The NPRM requests comment on proposed revisions to modernize, strengthen, and make more effective the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects that was promulgated as a Common Rule in 1991. The NPRM was published in the
The comment period for the NPRM published on September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53933), is extended by 30 days and thus will end on January 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket ID number HHS-OPHS-2015-0008, by one of the following methods:
•
•
Comments received, including any personal information, will be posted without change to
Jerry Menikoff, M.D., J.D., Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852; telephone: 240 453-6900 or 1-866-447-4777; EMAIL:
Since the NPRM was published on September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53933), participating departments and agencies have received requests to extend the comment period to allow sufficient time for a full review of the NPRM. The departments and agencies listed in this document are committed to affording the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on the NPRM and welcome comments.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The FDIC is proposing a rule that would revise a provision of its Securitization Safe Harbor Rule, which relates to the treatment of financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation, in order to clarify a requirement as to loss mitigation by servicers of residential mortgage loans.
Comments on the Proposed Rule must be received by January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN number, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
George H. Williamson, Manager, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, (571) 858-8199. Phillip E. Sloan, Counsel, Legal Division, (703) 562-6137.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in regulations codified at 12 CFR 360.6 (the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule), set forth criteria under which in its capacity as receiver or conservator of an insured depository institution the FDIC will not, in the exercise of its authority to repudiate contracts, recover or reclaim financial assets transferred in connection with securitization transactions. Asset transfers that, under the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule, are not subject to recovery or reclamation through the exercise of the FDIC's repudiation authority include those that pertain to certain grandfathered transactions, such as, for example, asset transfers made prior to December 31, 2010 that satisfied the conditions (except for the legal isolation condition addressed by the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule) for sale accounting treatment under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in effect for reporting periods prior to November 15, 2009 and that pertain to a securitization transaction that satisfied certain other requirements. In addition, the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule provides that asset transfers that are not grandfathered, but that satisfy the conditions (except for the legal isolation condition addressed by the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule) for sale accounting treatment under GAAP in effect for reporting periods after November 15, 2009 and that pertain to a securitization transaction that satisfies all other conditions of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule (such asset transfers, together with grandfathered asset transfers, are referred to collectively as Safe Harbor Transfers) will not be subject to FDIC recovery or reclamation actions through the exercise of the FDIC's repudiation authority. For any securitization transaction in respect of which transfers of financial assets do not qualify as Safe Harbor Transfers but which transaction satisfies all of its other requirements, the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule provides that, in the event the FDIC as receiver or conservator remains in monetary default for a specified period under a securitization due to its failure to pay or apply collections or repudiates the securitization asset transfer agreement and does not pay damages within a specified period, certain remedies can be exercised on an expedited basis.
Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule sets forth conditions relating to the servicing of residential mortgage loans. This paragraph includes a condition that the securitization documents must require that the servicer commence action to mitigate losses no later than ninety days after an asset first becomes delinquent unless all delinquencies on such asset have been cured.
In January, 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) adopted mortgage loan servicing requirements that became effective on January 10, 2014. One of the requirements, set forth in Subpart C to Regulation X, at 12 CFR 1024.41, in general prohibits a servicer from commencing a foreclosure unless the borrower's mortgage loan obligation is more than 120 days delinquent. This section of Regulation X also provides additional rules that, among other things, require a lender to further delay foreclosure if the borrower submits a loss mitigation application before the lender has commenced the foreclosure process and requires a lender to delay a foreclosure for which it has commenced the foreclosure process if a borrower has submitted a complete loss mitigation application more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale.
While the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule does not define what constitutes action to mitigate losses, the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking that preceded issuance of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule
The objective of the Proposed Rule is to facilitate regulatory compliance and ease regulatory burden by ensuring that regulations are clear and consistent with other regulatory initiatives. In particular, the objective of the Proposed Rule is to harmonize the residential loan servicing condition of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule with the CFPB's loan servicing requirements.
The FDIC invites comment from all members of the public on the Proposed Rule. Comments are specifically requested on whether additional changes to the servicing provisions included in the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule need to be modified so as not to conflict with other applicable laws or regulations. The FDIC will carefully consider all comments that relate to the Proposed Rule.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603-605. The FDIC hereby certifies that the Proposed Rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as that term applies to insured depository institutions.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat.1338, 1471) requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has sought to present the Proposed Rule in a simple and straightforward manner.
Banks, Banking, Bank deposit insurance, Holding companies, National banks, Participations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securitizations.
For the reasons stated above, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 12 CFR part 360 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(1), 1821(d)(10)(C), 1821(d)(11), 1821(e)(1), 1821(e)(8)(D)(i), 1823(c)(4), 1823(e)(2); Sec. 401(h), Pub. L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 357.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Servicing and other agreements must provide servicers with authority, subject to contractual oversight by any master servicer or oversight advisor, if any, to mitigate losses on financial assets consistent with maximizing the net present value of the financial asset. Servicers shall have the authority to modify assets to address reasonably foreseeable default, and to take other action to maximize the value and minimize losses on the securitized financial assets. The documents shall require that the servicers apply industry best practices for asset management and servicing. The documents shall require the servicer to act for the benefit of all investors, and not for the benefit of any particular class of investors, that the servicer maintain records of its actions to permit full review by the trustee or other representative of the investors and that the servicer must commence action to mitigate losses no later than ninety (90) days after an asset first becomes delinquent unless all delinquencies have been cured,
By order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2006-23-17, which applies to certain Turbomeca S.A. Turmo IV A and IV C turboshaft engines. AD 2006-23-17 currently requires repetitive inspections of the centrifugal compressor intake wheel (inducer) blades for cracks and corrosion, replacement of parts that fail inspection, and replacement of the TU 197 standard centrifugal compressor. This proposed AD would require the same inspections but at revised intervals, add the replacement of the TU 215 standard centrifugal compressor, and require replacement of parts that fail inspection. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the centrifugal compressor inducer, which could lead to an uncontained blade release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 25, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Wego Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7134; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On November 7, 2006, we issued AD 2006-23-17, Amendment 39-14829 (71 FR 66664, November 16, 2006), (“AD 2006-23-17”), for all Turbomeca S.A. Turmo IV A and IV C turboshaft engines. AD 2006-23-17 resulted from a Turbomeca S.A. review of the engine service experience and their determination that more frequent borescope inspections (BSIs) are required on engines not modified to the TU 191, TU 197, or TU 224 standard. AD 2006-23-17 requires repetitive BSI and eddy current inspections (ECIs) or ultrasonic inspections (UIs) of centrifugal compressor intake wheel (inducer) blades and replacement of parts that fail inspection and replacement of the TU 197 standard centrifugal compressor. We issued AD 2006-23-17 to prevent centrifugal compressor intake wheel (inducer) blade cracks, which can result in engine in-flight power loss, engine shutdown, or forced landing.
Since we issued AD 2006-23-17, a centrifugal compressor inducer blade loss occurred on an engine modified to TU 224 standard. This blade loss was due to cracks caused by impacts combined with significant erosion of the part not related to the TU 224 modification. Turbomeca S.A. has revised the inspection intervals for the centrifugal compressor (inducer) blades, and requires replacement of parts that fail inspection, and replacement of the TU 197 and TU 215 standard centrifugal compressors. This proposed AD would require repetitive BSIs, and ECIs or UIs of the centrifugal compressor inducers at revised intervals, replacement of parts that fail inspection, and replacement of the TU 197 and TU 215 standard centrifugal compressors.
We reviewed Turbomeca S.A. Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. A249-72-0100 Version H, dated May 21, 2015. The MSB describes procedures for the inspection and replacement of the centrifugal compressor inducer blades. 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 NPRM 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 NPRM would require repetitive BSIs, and ECIs or UIs based on the in-service requirements established for the various centrifugal compressor inducer standards, replacement of parts that fail inspection, and replacement of the TU 197 and TU 215 standard centrifugal compressors.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 36 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that two of these engines will require compressor replacement. We also estimate that about 40 hours per engine are required to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Parts cost about $40,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $202,400.
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 have 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 that the 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.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 25, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2006-23-17.
This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Turmo IV A and IV C turboshaft engines.
This AD was prompted by a centrifugal compressor inducer blade loss. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the centrifugal compressor inducer, which could lead to an uncontained blade release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Remove the TU 197 and TU 215 standard centrifugal compressors and install the TU 224 standard centrifugal compressor, within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Perform initial and repetitive ultrasonic inspections (UIs) or eddy current inspections (ECIs) of the centrifugal compressor (inducer). Use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 6.B.(1)(b) of Turbomeca S.A. Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. A249 72 0100 Version H, dated May 21, 2015 to do the inspections. Use Appendix 1 of Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A249 72 0100 Version H, dated May 21, 2015 for the schedule of inspections.
(3) Perform initial and repetitive borescope inspections (BSIs) of the centrifugal compressor inducer. Use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 6.B.(1)(a) of Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A249 72 0100 Version H, dated May 21, 2015 to do the inspections. Use Appendix 1 of Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A249 72 0100 Version H, dated May 21, 2015 for the schedule of inspections.
(4) If, during any inspection required by paragraphs (e)(2) or (e)(3) of this AD, any crack, corrosion, or other damage is detected on the inducer, then before next flight, replace the centrifugal compressor.
(5) Accomplishment of a UI or ECI of the centrifugal compressor inducer, required by paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, is acceptable in lieu of a BSI required by paragraph (e)(3) of this AD for that engine.
(6) Replacement of a centrifugal compressor required by paragraph (e)(4) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this AD.
You may take credit for the inspections and corrective actions required by paragraph (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this AD if you performed the inspections and corrective actions before the effective date of this AD, using Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A249 72 0100, Version G, or an earlier version.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Wego Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7134; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.
(3) 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 Energy Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing to eliminate the exemptions for wind generators from the requirement to provide reactive power. As a result, all newly interconnecting generators, including both synchronous and non-synchronous generators, would be required to provide reactive power. To implement this requirement, the Commission proposes to revise the
Comments are due January 25, 2016.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
•
•
1. In this Proposal to Revise Standard Generator Interconnection Agreements (Proposal), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing to eliminate the exemptions for wind generators from the requirement to provide reactive power. As a result, all newly interconnecting generators, including both synchronous and non-synchronous, would be required to provide reactive power. Specifically, the Commission proposes to modify the two
2. The existing
3. Therefore, the Commission proposes to eliminate the existing exemptions for wind generators, and thereby require that all newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators provide dynamic reactive power as a condition of interconnection. This requirement would also apply to all existing non-synchronous generators making upgrades to their generation facilities that require new interconnection requests. The proposals set forth in this Proposal are intended to ensure that all generators, synchronous and non-synchronous, are treated in a not unduly discriminatory or preferential manner, as required by sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
4. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed reforms sixty (60) days after publication of this Proposal in the
5. Transmission providers require reactive power to control system voltage for efficient and reliable operation of an alternating current transmission system. At times, transmission providers need generators to either supply or consume reactive power. Starting with Order No. 888,
6. Starting with Order No. 2003, the Commission adopted standard procedures and a standard agreement for the interconnection of large generation facilities (the
7. In June 2005, the Commission issued Order No. 661,
8. In May 2005, the Commission issued Order No. 2006,
9. Since the Commission provided these exemptions from the reactive power requirement for wind generators, the equipment needed for a wind generator to provide reactive power appears to have become more commercially available and less costly, such that the cost of installing equipment that is capable of providing reactive power is comparable to the costs of a traditional generator.
10. The continued exemption from the reactive power requirement in the
11. Further, the Commission is concerned that, as the penetration of wind generation continues to grow, exempting a class of generators from providing reactive power could create reliability issues if those generators represent a substantial amount of total generation, or if many of the resources that currently provide reactive power are retired from operation. Local reliability issues, due to the short distances that reactive power can be transmitted, that are not readily apparent given the current generation mix could result if a region were to lose synchronous resources that supply reactive power and the resulting generation mix consisted of a significant quantity of resources that were exempt from providing reactive power. Further, the Commission believes that maintaining this exemption may unduly place the burden of supplying reactive power on synchronous generators without a reasonable technological or cost-based distinction between synchronous and non-synchronous generators.
12. Therefore, the Commission preliminarily concludes that the continued exemption from the reactive power requirement for newly interconnecting wind generators is unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory and preferential. The Commission, therefore, proposes to revise the
13. Removing the exemptions for wind generators from the reactive power requirement would specifically require all newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators, and all existing non-synchronous generators proposing upgrades to their generation facilities that require new interconnection requests, to design their generating facilities to maintain reactive power within a power factor range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, or the standard range established by the transmission provider and approved by the Commission, to be measured at the Point of Interconnection.
14. The Commission also proposes to require that the reactive power capability installed by non-synchronous generators be dynamic. In Order No. 661, the Commission declined to require dynamic reactive power capability from wind generators, unless the System Impact Study showed that dynamic reactive power capability was needed for system reliability, reasoning that dynamic reactive power capability may not be needed in every case.
15. Further, the Commission proposes to require that newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators be required to design the generating facility to maintain the required power factor range only when the generator's real power output exceeds 10 percent of its nameplate capacity.
16. Specifically, with deleted text in brackets and added text in italics, the Commission proposes to revise section 9.6.1 of the
Interconnection Customer shall design the Large Generating Facility to maintain a composite power delivery at continuous rated power output at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, unless Transmission Provider has established different requirements that apply to all generators in the Control Area on a comparable basis. [The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to wind generators.]
The Commission similarly proposes to revise section 1.8.1 of the
The Interconnection Customer shall design its Small Generating Facility to maintain a composite power delivery at continuous rated power output at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, unless the Transmission Provider has established different requirements that apply to all similarly situated generators in the control area on a comparable basis. [The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to wind generators.]
In addition, the Commission would strike paragraph A.ii of Appendix G to the
A wind generating plant shall maintain a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, measured at the Point of Interconnection as defined in this LGIA, if the Transmission Provider's System Impact Study shows that such a requirement is necessary to ensure safety or reliability. The power factor range standard can be met by using, for example, power electronics designed to supply this level of reactive capability 606 (taking into account any limitations due to voltage level, real power output, etc.) or fixed and switched capacitors if agreed to by the Transmission Provider, or a combination of the two. The Interconnection Customer shall not disable power factor equipment while the wind plant is in operation. Wind plants shall also be able to provide sufficient dynamic voltage support in lieu of the power system stabilizer and automatic voltage regulation at the generator excitation system if the System Impact Study shows this to be required for system safety or reliability.
17. The Commission proposes to apply the reactive power requirement to all newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators, as well as all existing non-synchronous generators making upgrades to their generation facilities that require new interconnection requests, as of the effective date of the final revision. The Commission also proposes to apply the reactive power requirement to all newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators that have requested that an LGIA or SGIA be filed unexecuted with the Commission that is still pending before the Commission as of the effective date of the final revision. Thus, the requirement would not apply to non-synchronous generators that have executed an LGIA or SGIA, as relevant, prior to the effective date of the final revision, unless they propose upgrades to their generation facilities that require new interconnection requests. Given that not all existing wind generators are capable of providing reactive power without incurring substantial costs to install new equipment, we do not believe it is reasonable or necessary to require those generators to provide reactive power. However, existing wind generators that make upgrades to their generation facility that require a new interconnection request will be required to conform to this new requirement.
18. The Commission seeks comments on the Proposal to remove the exemptions for wind generators from the reactive power requirement. Further, the Commission seeks comments on whether the current power factor range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, as set forth in the existing
19. To comply with the requirements of this Proposal, the Commission proposes to require each public utility
20. In some cases, public utility transmission providers may have provisions in their currently effective
21. The Commission will assess whether each compliance filing satisfies the proposed requirements and principles stated above and issue additional orders as necessary to ensure that each public utility transmission provider meets the requirements of this Proposal and the subsequent final revision.
22. The Commission proposes that transmission providers that are not
23. The collection of information contained in this Proposal to Revise Standard Generator Interconnection Agreements is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
24. The reforms proposed in this Proposal would amend the Commission's standard generator interconnection agreements in accordance with section 35.28(f)(1) of the Commission's regulations
25. While the Commission expects the adoption of the reforms proposed in this Proposal to provide significant benefits, the Commission understands that implementation can be a complex and costly endeavor. The Commission solicits comments on the accuracy of provided burden and cost estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondents' burdens.
• Year 1: $142,560 ($1,080/utility)
• Year 2: $0
After Year 1, the reforms proposed in this Proposal, once implemented, would not significantly change existing burdens on an ongoing basis.
26. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the
27. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
28. To the extent the RFA applies to this proceeding, the Commission estimates that the total number of public utility transmission providers that would have to modify their currently effective
29. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
30. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this Proposal to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due January 25, 2016. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM16-1-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address.
31. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
32. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
33. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this Proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
34. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
35. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field.
36. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariffs.
By direction of the Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish three special anchorage areas in the Connecticut River in the vicinity Old Saybrook, CT. This proposed action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation in that area and provide safe and secure
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 28, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2012-0806 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, contact Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management at Coast Guard First District, telephone 617-223-8351, email
The proposed special anchorage areas are intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions and to promote safe and efficient travel in the navigable channels of the Connecticut River adjacent to Calves Island, and also to aid the town of Old Saybrook in enforcing its mooring and boating regulations by clearly defining the mooring fields currently established by the town. All proposed coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
The rule is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by creating three special anchorage areas in the Connecticut River in the vicinity of the eastern portion of Old Saybrook, CT. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, and 2071.
The proposed rule would create three new special anchorage areas, referred to as special anchorage areas A, B, and C in the Connecticut River in the vicinity of the Old Saybrook, CT. Special anchorage area A is approximately 680,800 sq. yards and would be located between Ferry Point and Calves Island, upstream of the I-95/US RT 1 Baldwin Bridge. Special anchorage area B would be approximately 51,200 sq. yards and located just east of North Cove. Special anchorage area C would be approximately 185,400 sq. yards located in North Cove west of the navigable channel. Illustrations showing the locations of these proposed special anchorage areas are available in the docket.
Vessels less than 20 meters in length are not required to sound signals under Rule 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 CFR 83.35) nor exhibit anchor lights or shapes under Rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 CFR 83.30) when at anchor in a special anchorage area. Additionally, mariners using these anchorage areas are encouraged to contact local and state authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to ensure compliance with any additional applicable state and local laws. Such laws may involve, for example, compliance with direction from the local harbormaster when placing or using moorings within the anchorage.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and 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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
We expect minimal additional cost impacts on fishing, or recreational boats anchoring because this rule would not affect normal surface navigation. Although this proposed rulemaking may have some impact on the public, the potential impact would be minimized for the following reasons: (1) normal surface navigation will not be affected as these three areas in the Connecticut River in the vicinity of the eastern portion of Old Saybrook has been historically used as a mooring field by the town of Old Saybrook; (2) this proposed rule would simply permit eligible vessels in existing mooring areas to not use sound signals or exhibit anchor lights or shapes when at anchor there; (3) it encourages the use of existing mooring areas; and (4) the number of vessels using these special anchorage areas will be limited due to depth (less than or equal to 18 feet).
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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Connecticut River in Old Saybrook, CT may be small entities, for the reasons stated above in section IV.A, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
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 proposed 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
This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves the establishment of special anchorage grounds. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist is 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
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 83. All anchoring in the areas is under the supervision of the town of Old Saybrook Harbor Master or other such authority as may be designated by the authorities of the town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut. Mariners using these special anchorage areas are encouraged to contact local and state authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to ensure compliance with any additional applicable state and local laws.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to disestablish 13 anchorage grounds and 1 special anchorage area that are now obsolete in Newark Bay, the East River, Western Long Island Sound, Raritan Bay, and Lower New York Bay. It also proposes to reduce the size of three anchorage grounds in Raritan, Sandy Hook, and Lower New York Bays. This proposed rulemaking is necessary due to the increased size and draft of current commercial vessels operating in the Captain of the Port New York zone, as the existing anchorages have insufficient water depths to accommodate these vessels; the exposure of these anchorages to winds, tides, and currents; and changes in recreational vessel usage patterns in Newark Bay. This proposed rulemaking would provide a higher degree of vessel and environmental safety by reducing the risk of vessels grounding in shallow water, and accurately reflect the anchorages currently in use.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0038 using the following Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this notice of proposed rulemaking, contact Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management at Coast Guard First District, telephone 617-223-8351, email
Anchorage grounds were originally established by the (USACE) on April 25, 1907, pursuant to an Act of Congress approved May 16, 1888. This information was published in the 1909 (USCP) Atlantic Coast, Part IV, From Point Judith to New York, Fifth Edition. Anchorage regulation duties and powers were transferred to the Coast Guard in 1967 (32 FR 17726, Dec. 12, 1967)
The special anchorage areas (SAAs) were originally established by the USACE and first published in the USCP in 1960. The USCP is a series of nine nautical books published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that encompasses a wide variety of information important to navigators of U.S. waters. The USCP is intended to be used as a supplement to NOAA nautical charts. Topics covered include anchorage grounds, SAAs, and specific anchoring regulations governing their usage.
The legal basis for this rule is: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define anchorage grounds and special anchorage areas.
The specific reasons for this rulemaking are to disestablish 13 anchorage grounds and 1 SAA that are now obsolete and reduce the size of three anchorage grounds that are no longer used by commercial or recreational mariners. The intended purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce the risk of vessels grounding in shallow water and accurately reflect the anchorages currently in use. The USACE New York District was consulted on this regulation and had no objections.
This proposed rule would disestablish five obsolete anchorage grounds in Newark Bay described in 33 CFR 110.155(h)(1) and (h)(3) through (6). During our 2012 WAMS review of Newark Bay, we announced in First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners that we were considering disestablishing anchorage ground numbers 34, 36, 37, 38, and 39. We received one comment that these anchorage grounds should be retained and dredged to a depth of not less than 12 feet at mean low water so vessels could anchor within their boundaries. These anchorage grounds are not a federal project under the jurisdiction of the USACE and thus will not be dredged to a depth that is usable by most commercial vessels.
During this 2012 WAMS we also sought comment on the proposed disestablishment of the Newark Bay Southeast and Newark Bay Southwest SAAs described in 33 CFR 110.60(d)(1) and (2). We received no comments that these SAAs are used or that they should be retained. These proposed revisions were advertised to the public in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners number 50 in 2011 (dated December 14, 2011) through number 24 in 2012 (dated June 13, 2012). During a 2014 site visit to the Robbins Reef Yacht Club in Bayonne, NJ, the Coast Guard was notified by a club member that the Newark Bay Southeast SAA is still in use. Based on those comments we are no longer considering disestablishing the Newark Bay Southeast SAA. We are, however, proposing to disestablish the Newark Bay Southwest SAA, § 110.60(d)(2).
This proposed rule would disestablish seven obsolete anchorage grounds in Western Long Island Sound and the East River described in 33 CFR 110.155(a)(2) through (7), and (b)(2). During our 2013 WAMS review of New Rochelle Harbor, Manhasset and Little Neck Bays we announced in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners that we were considering disestablishing anchorage ground numbers 1-A, 1-B, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. We received no comments that these anchorage grounds are being used or that they should be retained. These proposed revisions were advertised to the public in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners number 48 in 2012 (dated November 28, 2012) through number 25 in 2013 (dated June 19, 2013).
This proposed rule would also disestablish obsolete anchorage ground number 46 in Raritan Bay described in 33 CFR 110.155(j)(4). Additionally, this proposed rule would reduce the size of anchorage ground number 28 described in 33 CFR 110.155(f)(3) and anchorage ground number 47 described in 33 CFR 110.155(j)(5) in Raritan and Lower New York Bays. Portions of these two reduced anchorage grounds would be incorporated into revised anchorage grounds, number 26, which would also be reduced in size, described in 33 CFR 110.155(f)(1), and revised anchorage ground, number 28, in Raritan and Lower New York Bays described in 33 CFR 110.155(f)(3). The existing anchorage ground numbers 26, 28, 46, and 47 cover approximately 59.307 square nautical miles. The proposed revised anchorage ground numbers 26 and 28 would cover approximately 7.877 square nautical miles. In addition, this proposed rule would update the coordinates to 1983 datum for Anchorage Ground number 27 in the Atlantic Ocean described in 33 CFR 110.155(f)(2).
This rulemaking would also remove regulations regarding navigation and mooring in the vicinity of the Naval Ammunition Depot Pier at Leonardo, NJ, in existing 33 CFR 110.155(f)(1)(i) and (ii) because these requirements are already codified at 33 CFR 165.130. During our 2014 WAMS review of Raritan Bay, we announced in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners we considering disestablishing anchorage ground numbers 46 and 47. We received no comments that these anchorage grounds are being used or that they should be retained in their current configurations. These proposed revisions were advertised to the public in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners number 07 in 2014 (dated February 19, 2014) through number 26 in 2014 (dated July 2, 2014).
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant impact because it is administrative in nature and would not alter current navigational practices on the affected waterways.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor within these portions of Newark Bay; the East River near Little Bay; Western Long Island Sound between Throgs Neck, Sands Point, and Larchmont Harbor; and Raritan and Lower New York Bays.
This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this rule would only codify current navigation practices on the affected waterways. Neither the proposed disestablishment of anchorage grounds nor the size reductions would affect vessels' schedules or their abilities to freely transit near these areas within the Captain of the Port New York zone. The water available in the anchorage grounds to be disestablished is too shallow for most commercial vessels to anchor within and the anchorage grounds in western Long Island Sound and East River are currently unusable as they are exposed to weather, tides, and currents that do not provide a safe anchorage.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
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 proposed 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
This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The revisions read as follows:
(2)
(3)
(j) * * *
(2)
(i) Vessels must not anchor in the channel to Keyport Harbor west of lines ranging from Keyport Channel Buoy 1 to Keyport Channel Buoy 9, thence through Keyport Channel Buoys 11 and 13 to the northeast corner of the easterly steamboat wharf; and east of a line extending from a point 400 yards west of Keyport Channel Buoy 1 tangent to the west shore at the mouth of Matawan Creek.
(ii) [Reserved]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document seeks comment on the ex parte proposal made by the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to facilitate the relocation of incumbent public safety communications systems operating in the 758-769/788-799 MHz spectrum band (Band 14) in advance of the deployment and operation of FirstNet's nationwide broadband public safety network (NPSBN).
Comments are due on or before December 9, 2015.
See the
Brian Marenco, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0838.
This is a summary of the Commission's document, DA 15-1253, released on November 5, 2015. The document is available for download at
1. On October 20, 2015, FirstNet filed an ex parte letter stating that its Board recently approved a Spectrum Relocation Grant Program designed to facilitate the relocation of Band 14 incumbents, and that it expects a Federal Funding Opportunity for the grant program to be released in early 2016. FirstNet further requests “that the continuation of Commission licenses or other authorizations under Band 14 by any incumbent be conditioned upon the requirement that no operation on Band 14 be permitted without the express consent of FirstNet after July 31, 2017.” FirstNet also requests that “[i]n addition or in the alternative, . . . the Commission consider conditioning any continued operation on Band 14 on the cessation of all operations on Band 14 within 90 days written notice to the Band 14 incumbent(s) from FirstNet that deployment of the NPSBN is to begin in its State.”
2. In its 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in these dockets, the Commission sought comment “on the appropriate mechanism to transition incumbent narrowband operators out of [Band 14] and on the timeframe by which such a transition should be accomplished,” 78 FR 24138, April 24, 2013. Specifically, the Commission asked whether it could require FirstNet to manage this transition process, or to provide funds for the process, and whether the Commission should establish a hard deadline by which relocation should be accomplished. While the Commission has already received comments on these issues, it believes that seeking expedited comment on FirstNet's more specific request will help ensure a complete and comprehensive record, and is consistent with FirstNet's expectation of release of a Federal Funding Opportunity for its related grant program in early 2016. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on FirstNet's request in light of the 2013 Notice and the associated record.
3. Interested parties may file comments until fourteen days after the publication of this document in the
4. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:
• Paper Filers: Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
5. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
6. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
7. For further information, contact: Roberto Mussenden, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-1428 or
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Proposed Amendment to Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/NOAA-1, Applicants for the NOAA Corps.
This notice announces the Department of Commerce's (Department) proposal to amend the system of records entitled “COMMERCE/NOAA-1, Applicants for the NOAA Corps,” under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Commissioned Officer Corps (NOAA Corps) is the uniformed service of NOAA, a bureau of the Department of Commerce. The NOAA Corps provides a cadre of professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines who serve their country by supporting NOAA's mission of surveying the Earth's oceans, coasts, and atmosphere to ensure the economic and physical well-being of the Nation. This record system is necessary in order to identify both minimum eligibility and level of qualification of applicants for the NOAA Corps.
To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before December 28, 2015. Unless comments are received, the amended system of records will become effective as proposed on the date of publication of a subsequent notice in the
Comments may be mailed to Director, NOAA Corps, 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 500, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
Persons wishing to be considered for a NOAA Corps Commission must submit a complete application package, including NOAA Form 56-42, at least three letters of recommendation, NOAA Form 56-42A, and official transcripts. A personal interview must also be conducted. All persons shall meet the eligibility requirements prior to their appointments into the NOAA Corps. The requirements must include a bachelor's degree and at least 48 credit hours of science, engineering, or other disciplines related to NOAA's missions (including either calculus or physics), have satisfactorily passed the prescribed mental and physical evaluations in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 3021(a)(2)(A), 3021(a)(3); 10 U.S.C. 532(a)(4), and ability to complete 20 years of active duty commissioned service prior to their 62nd birthday.
COMMERCE/NOAA-1, Applicants for the NOAA Corps.
Moderate.
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 500, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
Applicants for appointment in the NOAA Corps and persons providing references.
Name, date of birth, place of birth, country of citizenship (if U.S., how citizenship acquired), mailing address, physical address, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security number, selective service registration, educational information (names and locations of schools, graduation dates, areas of study, years attended, degrees) GPAs for undergraduate and graduate programs, courses (and credit hours) in progress or proposed prior to graduation, college transcripts, credit hours in applicable fields of study, work experience (name and location of company, position title, supervisor contact information, description of work, hours, salary and reason for leaving, whether employment is/was at a professional level), letters of reference, physical examinations, statements of prior military service (rejections, conscientious objector status, type of discharge, current obligations), recruiting officer's interview evaluation form, personal resumes, special qualifications and skills, and names of references.
The statutory authorities for this system of records are 33 U.S.C. Chapter 43, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps and PL 112-166 Section 2. (gg)(1), Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011.
The NOAA Corps provides a cadre of professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines who support NOAA's mission of surveying the Earth's oceans, coasts, and atmosphere to ensure the economic and physical well-being of the Nation. This record system is necessary in order to identify both minimum eligibility and level of qualification of applicants for the NOAA Corps. The system is designed as follows: Application and reference information may be submitted on a year-round basis, but the primary periods of collection are typically immediately preceding summer and winter college graduations. Completed applications are examined by the NOAA Officer Personnel Board in order to rate and/or assess the level of qualification, suitability, and availability of candidates for appointment. NOAA Form 56-42 and NOAA Form 56-42A are now fully electronic, the result of efforts to reduce paperwork, clarify the collection process and improve the quality of applicant responses.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the Department of Commerce (Department).
1. In the event that a system of records maintained by the Department to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law or contract, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or the necessity to protect an interest of the Department, the relevant records in the system of records, may be referred to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or protecting the interest of the Department.
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate, hearing officer or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations, administrative appeals and hearings.
3. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.
4. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) requires disclosure thereof.
5. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
6. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state or local agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit.
7. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state, local, or international agency, in response to its request, in connection with the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an individual, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
8. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.
9. A record in this system may be transferred, as a routine use, to the Office of Personnel Management: For personnel research purposes; as a data source for management information; for the production of summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained; or for related manpower studies.
10. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services Administration (GSA), or his designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this purpose, and any other relevant (
11. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities and persons when: (1) It is suspected or determined that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) may be made from this system to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) and the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).
Computerized data base; paper records in file folders in locked metal cabinets and/or locked rooms. Electronic records containing Privacy Act information are protected by a user identification/password. The database user identification/password is issued to individuals by authorized personnel.
Records are organized and retrieved by the individual's name.
The system of records is stored in a building with doors that are locked during and after business hours. Visitors to the facility must register and must be accompanied by Federal personnel at all times. Only those that have the need to know, to carry out the official duties of their job, have access to the information. Paper records are maintained in secured file cabinets in areas that are accessible only to authorized personnel of the Data Collection Agent. Electronic records containing Privacy Act information are protected by a user identification/password. The user identification/password is issued to individuals by authorized personnel. OMAO staff and contractors, to whom access to this information is granted in accordance with this system of records routine uses provision, are instructed on the confidential nature of this information.
All electronic information disseminated by NOAA adheres to the standards set out in Appendix III, Security of Automated Information Resources, OMB Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-23 and 278g-4); and the Government Information Security Reform Act, Public Law 106-398, and follows NIST SP 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-26, Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information
Records are destroyed after three years, if rejected, unless applicant indicates a desire for reconsideration. If selected and appointed to the NOAA Corps, the application becomes a permanent part of the officer's Official Personnel Folder.
Director, NOAA Corps, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 500 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
See NOAA Corps Directive, Chapter 6, Part 16107, Requests for Information.
See NOAA Corps Directive, Chapter 6, Part 16107, Requests for Information.
The Department's rules for access, for contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear in 15 CFR part 4b. Use above address.
Subject individuals, personal references, the NOAA Corps officer who recruited the individual, and those authorized by the individual to furnish information.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) this system of records is exempted from the notice, access, and contest requirements (under 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f)) of the agency regulations in order to fulfill commitments made to protect the confidentiality of sources, and to maintain access to sources of information which are necessary to determine an applicant's suitability for employment in the NOAA Corps.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, requesting authority to expand its service area under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of general-purpose zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 18, 2015.
FTZ 38 was approved by the Board on May 4, 1987 (Board Order 131, 43 FR 20526, May 12, 1978) and reorganized under the ASF on October 7, 2010 (Board Order 1710, 75 FR 65304, October 22, 2010). The zone currently has a service area that includes the Counties of Greenville, Spartanburg, Cherokee, Oconee, Union, Anderson and Laurens, South Carolina.
The applicant is requesting authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Pickens, Greenwood and Abbeville Counties, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the expanded service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed expanded service area is adjacent to the Greenville/Spartanburg Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 25, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to February 8, 2016.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Upon request by the County of Monroe, grantee of FTZ 141, the FTZ Board staff has terminated review of a notification of proposed production activity on behalf of American Tactical Imports within a now-expired site of FTZ 141 in Rochester, New York. The notification was received on July 29, 2013 (78 FR 50375-50376, 8/19/2013). The termination is the result of changed circumstances, and the case has been closed without prejudice.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on high pressure steel cylinders (“steel cylinders”) from the People's Republic of China (“the PRC”) for the period of review June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015.
Andrew Devine or Susan Pulongbarit, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0238 or (202) 482-4031, respectively.
On June 15, 2015, Norris Cylinder Company (“Petitioner”) submitted a request for administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel cylinders from the PRC for a single company, Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd. (“BTIC”).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party or parties that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, all parties withdrew their requests for administrative reviews within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation. No other parties requested an administrative review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review in its entirety.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of steel cylinders from the PRC. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Frances Veith at (202) 482-4295 (Australia); Yang Jin Chun at (202) 482-5760 (Brazil); Jack Zhao at (202) 482-1396 (Japan); Matthew Renkey at (202) 482-2312 (the Republic of Korea (“Korea”)); Dmitry Vladimirov at (202) 482-0665, (the Netherlands); Jack Zhao at (202) 482-1396 (the Republic of Turkey (“Turkey”)); and Catherine Cartsos at (202) 482-1757 (the United Kingdom), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On August 31, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) initiated antidumping duty (“AD”) investigations of imports of certain hot-rolled steel flat products (“hot-rolled steel”) from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
Sections 733(c)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Act permit the Department to postpone the time limit for the preliminary determination if it concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating and determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated by reason of the number and complexity of the transactions to be investigated or adjustments to be considered, the novelty of the issues presented, or the number of firms whose activities must be investigated, and additional time is necessary to make the preliminary determination. Under this section of the Act, the Department may postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation.
The Department determines that the parties involved in these hot-rolled steel AD investigations are cooperating, and that the investigations are extraordinarily complicated. Additional time is required to analyze the questionnaire responses and issue appropriate requests for clarification and additional information.
Therefore, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1), the Department is postponing the time period for the preliminary determinations of these investigations by 50 days, to March 8, 2016. Pursuant to section 735(a)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
International Trade Administration.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Maria D'Andrea, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Tel. (202) 482-1550,
Article 4.1 of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (the “Agreement”) provides for a textile and apparel safeguard mechanism. This safeguard mechanism applies when, as a result of the reduction or elimination of a customs duty under the Agreement, a Korean textile or apparel article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article, and under such conditions as to cause serious damage or actual threat thereof to a U.S. industry producing a like or directly competitive article. In these circumstances, Article 4.1 permits the United States to (a) suspend any further reduction in the rate of duty provided for under Annex 2-B of the Agreement in the duty imposed on the article; or (b) increase duties on the imported article from Korea to a level that does not exceed the lesser of the prevailing U.S. normal trade relations (“NTR”)/most-favored-
The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”) provides that the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) will issue procedures for requesting such safeguard measures, for making its determinations under section 332(a) of the Act, and for providing relief under section 332(b) of the Act.
In Proclamation No. 8783 (77 FR 14265, March 9, 2012), the President delegated to CITA his authority under Subtitle C of Title III of the Act with respect to textile and apparel safeguard measures.
The textile and apparel safeguard mechanism will be of considerable benefit to firms manufacturing textile and apparel goods in the United States in the event that an industry finds itself to be adversely impacted by preferential duty or duty-free imports of textiles and apparel from Korea.
CITA must collect information in order to determine whether a domestic textile or apparel industry is being adversely impacted by imports of these products from Korea, thereby allowing CITA to take corrective action to protect the viability of the domestic textile and apparel industry, subject to section 332(b) of the Act.
An interested party in the U.S. domestic textile and apparel industry may file a request for a textile and apparel safeguard action with CITA. Consistent with longstanding CITA practice in considering textile and apparel safeguard actions, CITA will consider an interested party to be an entity (which may be a trade association, firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers) that is representative of either: (A) A domestic producer or producers of an article that is like or directly competitive with the subject Korean textile or apparel article; or (B) a domestic producer or producers of a component used in the production of an article that is like or directly competitive with the subject Korean textile or apparel article.
In order for a request to be considered, the requestor must provide the following information in support of a claim that a textile or apparel article from Korea is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article, and under such conditions as to cause serious damage or actual threat thereof, to a U.S. industry producing an article that is like, or directly competitive with, the imported article: (1) Name and description of the imported article concerned; (2) import data demonstrating that imports of a Korea origin textile or apparel article that are like or directly competitive with the articles produced by the domestic industry concerned are increasing in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article; (3) U.S. domestic production of the like or directly competitive articles of U.S. origin indicating the nature and extent of the serious damage or actual threat thereof, along with an affirmation that to the best of the requester's knowledge, the data represent substantially all of the domestic production of the like or directly competitive article(s) of U.S. origin; (4) imports from Korea as a percentage of the domestic market of the like or directly competitive article; and (5) all data available to the requester showing changes in productivity, utilization of capacity, inventories, exports, wages, employment, domestic prices, profits, and investment, and any other information, relating to the existence of serious damage or actual threat thereof caused by imports from Korea to the industry producing the like or directly competitive article that is the subject of the request. To the extent that such information is not available, the requester should provide best estimates and the basis therefore.
If CITA determines that the request provides the information necessary for it to be considered, CITA will publish a notice in the
CITA will make a determination on any request it considers within 60 calendar days of the close of the comment period. If CITA is unable to make a determination within 60 calendar days, it will publish a notice in the
If a determination under section 322(b) of the Act is affirmative, CITA may provide tariff relief to a U.S. industry to the extent necessary to remedy or prevent serious damage or actual threat thereof and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry to import competition. The import tariff relief is effective beginning on the date that CITA's affirmative determination is published in the
Entities submitting requests, responses or rebuttals to CITA may submit both a public and confidential version of their submissions. If the request is accepted, the public version will be posted on the dedicated Korea Free Trade Agreement textile safeguards section of the Office of Textile and Apparel (OTEXA) Web site. The confidential version of the request, responses or rebuttals will not be shared with the public as it may contain business confidential information. Entities submitting responses or rebuttals may use the public version of the request as a basis for responses.
When an interested party files a request for a textile and apparel safeguard action with CITA, ten copies of any such request must be provided in a paper format. If business confidential information is provided, two copies of a non-confidential version must also be provided. If CITA determines that the request provides the necessary information to be considered, it publishes a
OMB Control Number: 0625-0269.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Kaitlin Wojnar at (202) 482-3857, Office VII, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On October 28, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (circular welded pipe) from Pakistan, filed in proper form on behalf of Bull Moose Tube Company, EXLTUBE, Wheatland Tube Company, and Western Tube and Conduit (collectively, Petitioners).
On November 2, 2015, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petition.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that the Government of Pakistan (GOP) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to imports of circular welded pipe from Pakistan and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs in Pakistan on which we have initiated a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that Petitioners are requesting.
The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.
The product covered by this investigation is circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from Pakistan. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to and received responses from Petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOP of the receipt of the Petition. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOP the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD allegations.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that circular welded pipe constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” at Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their shipments of the domestic like product in 2014, then compared their shipments to the estimated total shipments domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues Supplement, Second General Issues Supplement, Third General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate.
Because Pakistan is a “Subsidies Agreement Country,” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Pakistan materially injures, or threatens material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. Petitioners allege that subject imports from Pakistan exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under the Act.
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price suppression or depression, lost sales and revenues, reduced shipments and a plant closure leading to job losses, increased inventories and inventory overhang in the U.S. market, and decline in profitability.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that (1) alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting the allegations.
Petitioners allege that producers/exporters of circular welded pipe in Pakistan benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOP. The Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, and/or exporters of circular welded pipe from Pakistan receive countervailable subsidies from the GOP.
On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all of the 14 alleged programs in Pakistan. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Petitioners named six companies as producers/exporters of circular welded pipe in Pakistan.
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOP
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of circular welded pipe from Pakistan are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.
This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (
Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L, is also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above. Covered products may also possess one or more of the following characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in nominal O.D.; has a galvanized and/or painted (
Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.
Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.
Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:
The scope of this investigation does not include:
The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.50.5030, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. However, the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of whether the merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Kate Johnson at (202) 482-4929 (the Sultanate of Oman (Oman) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)); David Lindgren at (202) 482-3870 (Pakistan and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)); or Dennis McClure at (202) 482-5973 (the Philippines), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On October 28, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (circular welded pipe) from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam, filed in proper form on behalf of Bull Moose Tube Company; EXLTUBE; Wheatland Tube, a division of JMC Steel Group; and Western Tube and Conduit (Petitioners).
On November 2 and 6, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that imports of circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioners are requesting.
Because the Petitions were filed on October 28, 2015, the period of investigation (POI) is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), as follows: October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015, for Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, and the UAE, and April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015, for Vietnam.
The product covered by these investigations is circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
During our review of the Petitions, the Department discussed with Petitioners the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
The Department will be giving interested parties an opportunity to provide comments on the appropriate physical characteristics of circular welded pipe to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Subsequent to the publication of this notice, the Department will be releasing a proposed list of physical characteristics and product-comparison criteria, and interested parties will have the opportunity to provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics used by manufacturers to describe circular welded pipe, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most
All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam less-than-fair-value investigations.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we determined that circular welded pipe constitutes a single domestic like product and we analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their shipments of the domestic like product in 2014, and compared their shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues Supplement, Second General Issues Supplement, Third General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners established industry support.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting the Department to initiate.
Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than fair value. In addition, Petitioners allege that subject imports from Oman, Pakistan, the UAE, and Vietnam exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
With regard to the Philippines, while the allegedly dumped imports from the Philippines do not exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility, Petitioners allege and provide supporting evidence that these imports will imminently exceed the negligibility threshold.
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; reduced shipments and a plant closure leading to job losses; increased inventories and inventory overhang in the U.S. market; and decline in profitability.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.
For Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam, Petitioners based export price (EP) U.S. prices on average unit values (AUVs) of U.S. imports from those countries.
For Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, and the UAE, Petitioners provided home market price information obtained through market research for circular welded pipe produced, and offered for sale, in each of these countries.
For Oman, the Philippines, and the UAE, Petitioners provided information that sales of circular welded pipe in the respective home markets were made at prices below the cost of production (COP). For these countries, Petitioners calculated NV based on constructed value (CV).
With respect to Vietnam, Petitioners stated that the Department has found Vietnam to be a non-market economy (NME) country in every previous less-than-fair-value investigation.
Petitioners claim that India is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam, it is a significant producer of the merchandise under consideration, and the data for valuing FOPs, factory overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit are both available and reliable.
Based on the information provided by Petitioners, we believe it is appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
Petitioners based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on a petitioning U.S. producer's consumption rates for producing circular welded pipe, as they did not
Petitioners valued the FOPs for raw materials (
Petitioners valued labor using India labor data published by the International Labor Organization (ILO).
Petitioners used public information, as reported by the Central Electric Authority (CEA) of India (the Government of India's electricity authority), to value electricity.
Petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses. For Oman, the Philippines and the UAE, Petitioners calculated COM based on Petitioners' experience adjusted for known differences between their industry in the United States and the industry of the respective country during the proposed POI.
Because certain home market prices fell below COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, Petitioners calculated NVs for Oman, the Philippines and the UAE based on CV.
Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for circular welded pipe are as follows: (1) Oman ranges from 98.87 to 105.58 percent;
Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for circular welded pipe from Vietnam is 113.18 percent.
Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the
On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.
Petitioners named six companies in Pakistan,
Although the Department normally relies on the number of producers/exporters identified in the petition and/or import data from CBP to determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in AD investigations, Petitioners identified only one company as a producer/exporter of circular welded pipe in Oman: Al Jazeera Tube Steel Company.
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET by the date noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.
With respect to Vietnam, Petitioners named three companies as producers/exporters of circular welded pipe.
Exporters/producers of circular welded pipe from Vietnam that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by all Vietnam exporters/producers no later than December 1, 2015, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam via
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and/or Vietnam are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
These investigations cover welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (
Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L, is also covered by the scope of these investigations when it meets the physical description set forth above. Covered products may also possess one or more of the following characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50mm) in nominal O.D.; has a galvanized and/or painted (
Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.
Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.
Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:
The scope of these investigations does not include:
The products subject to these investigations are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.50.5030, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. However, the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of whether the merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christopher J. Kemp, Department of Commerce, Office of Foreign-Trade Zones, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-0862, or
The Foreign-Trade Zone Application is the vehicle by which individual firms or organizations apply for foreign-trade zone (FTZ) status, for subzone status, production authority, modifications of existing zones, or for waivers. The FTZ Act and Regulations (19 U.S.C. 81b and 81f; 15 CFR 400.21-25, 43(f)) set forth the requirements for applications and other requests to the FTZ Board. The Act and Regulations require that applications for new or modified zones contain information on facilities, financing, operational plans, proposed production operations, need for FTZ authority, and economic impact, where applicable. Any request involving production authority requires specific information on the foreign status components and finished products involved. Applications for production activity can involve issues related to domestic industry and trade policy impact. Such applications must include specific information on the customs-tariff related savings that result from zone procedures and the economic consequences of permitting such savings. The FTZ Board needs complete and accurate information on the proposed operation and its economic effects because the Act and Regulations authorize the Board to restrict or prohibit operations that are detrimental to the public interest. The Regulations (15 CFR 400.43(f)) also require specific information for applications requesting waivers by parties impacted by 400.43(d). This information is necessary to assess the likelihood of the proposed activity resulting in a violation of the the uniform treatment provisions of the FTZ Act and Regulations.
U.S. firms or organizations submit applications in paper format along with an electronic copy to the Office of Foreign-Trade Zones.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Stephen Bailey at (202) 482-0193 (Canada) and Maisha Cryor at (202) 482-5831 (the People's Republic of China (PRC)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On October 28, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain iron mechanical transfer drive components (iron transfer drive components) from Canada and the PRC, filed in proper form on behalf of TB Wood's Incorporated (TB Woods) (Petitioner).
On November 3, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioner is requesting.
Because the Petitions were filed on October 28, 2015, the period of investigation (POI) is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015, for Canada and April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015, for the PRC.
The product covered by these investigations is iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of iron transfer drive components to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe iron transfer drive components, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on December 7, 2015, which is twenty calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on December 14, 2015. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of both the Canada and the PRC less-than-fair-value investigations.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that iron transfer drive components constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its production of the domestic like product in 2014, as well as estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
On November 12, 2015, we received comments on industry support from Baldor Electric Company (Baldor)
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions; General Issues Supplement; letters from Baldor, Caterpillar, and Petitioner; and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate.
Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by eroded domestic output and shipments; underselling and price suppression or depression; declining financial performance; negative impacts to employment; and lost sales and revenues.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate investigations of imports of iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.
For Canada, Petitioner based U.S. prices on price quotes to customers in the United States for iron transfer drive components produced in, and exported from, Canada.
For the PRC, Petitioner based U.S. prices on purchases of iron transfer drive components produced in and exported from the PRC by two different producers and sold or offered for sale to customers in the United States. Petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses consistent with the delivery terms.
For Canada, Petitioner provided home market price information based on price quotes for iron transfer drive components produced in and offered for sale in Canada.
Petitioner provided information that sales of iron transfer drive components in Canada were made at prices below the cost of production (COP) and calculated NV based on constructed
With respect to the PRC, Petitioner stated that the Department has found the PRC to be a non-market economy (NME) country in every administrative proceeding in which the PRC has been involved.
Petitioner claims that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and it is a significant producer of the merchandise under consideration.
Based on the information provided by Petitioner, we believe it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
Petitioner based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on U.S. producers consumption rates for producing iron transfer drive components as it did not have access to the consumption rates of PRC producers of the subject merchandise.
Petitioner valued the FOPs for raw materials (
Petitioner valued labor using quarterly Thai labor data published by Thailand's National Statistics Office (NSO).
Petitioner converted the wage rates to hourly and converted to U.S. Dollars using the average exchange rate during the POI.
Petitioner valued the packing materials used by PRC producers based on Thai import data for the POI obtained from GTA.
Petitioner used public information, as compiled by the Thai Board of Investment (TBI) to value electricity.
Petitioner calculated surrogate financial ratios (
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); SG&A expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses. Petitioner calculated COM based on a U.S. producer's experience adjusted for known differences between the industry in the United States and the industry in Canada during the proposed POI.
Because certain home market prices fell below COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, Petitioner calculated NVs based on CV.
Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of export price (EP) to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margin(s) for iron transfer drive components for Canada ranges from 9.60 to 191.34 percent.
Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for iron transfer drive components from the PRC range from 67.82 to 401.68 percent.
Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.
Petitioner named eight companies from Canada
With respect to the PRC, Petitioner named 36 companies as producers/exporters of iron transfer drive components.
Exporters/producers of iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by all Canada and PRC exporters/producers no later than December 1, 2015, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Canada and the PRC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
The products covered by these investigations are iron mechanical transfer drive components, whether finished or unfinished (
Iron mechanical transfer drive components subject to these investigations are those not less than 4.00 inches (101 mm) in the maximum nominal outer diameter.
Unfinished iron mechanical transfer drive components (
Subject merchandise includes iron mechanical transfer drive components as defined above that have been finished or machined in a third country, including but not limited to finishing/machining processes such as cutting, punching, notching, boring, threading, mitering, or chamfering, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the iron mechanical transfer drive components.
Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are covered by the scope of the investigations regardless of width, design, or iron type (
For purposes of these investigations, a covered product is of “iron” where the article has a carbon content of 1.7 percent by weight or above, regardless of the presence and amount of additional alloying elements.
The merchandise covered by these investigations is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8483.30.8090, 8483.50.6000, 8483.50.9040, 8483.50.9080, 8483.90.3000, 8483.90.8080. Covered merchandise may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7326.19.0010, 7326.19.0080, 8431.31.0040, 8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 8431.39.0080, and 8483.50.4000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Trisha Tran or Robert Galantucci at (202) 482-4852 or (202) 482-2923, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On October 28, 2015, the Department of Commerce (Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning certain iron mechanical transfer drive components (iron transfer drive components) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of TB Wood's Incorporated (Petitioner). The CVD petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of iron transfer drive components from the PRC and Canada.
On November 3, 2015 and November 6, 2015, the Department requested information and clarification for certain areas of the Petition.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that the Government of China (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to imports of iron transfer drive components from the PRC and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs in the PRC on which we have initiated a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegation.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that Petitioner is requesting.
The period of the investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.
The product covered by this investigation is iron transfer drive components from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the record of the concurrent AD investigations.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOC the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD petition. As the GOC did not request consultations prior to the initiation of this investigation, the Department and the GOC did not hold consultations.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that iron transfer drive components constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its production of the domestic like product in 2014, as well as estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
On November 12, 2015, we received comments on industry support from Baldor Electric Company (Baldor)
Our review of the data provided in the Petition; General Issues Supplement; letters from Baldor, Caterpillar, and Petitioner; and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate.
Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by eroded domestic output and shipments; underselling and price suppression or depression; declining financial performance; negative impacts to employment; and lost sales and revenues.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party filed a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting the allegations.
Petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of iron transfer drive components in the PRC benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOC. The Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of iron transfer drive components from the PRC receive countervailable subsidies from the GOC.
On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 39 of the 40 alleged programs in the PRC.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Petitioner named 36 companies as producers/exporters of iron transfer drive components from the PRC.
Exporters and producers of iron transfer drive components from the PRC that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by all PRC exporters/producers no later than December 1, 2015, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS, by 5 p.m. ET by the date noted above.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOC
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of iron transfer drive components from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.
The products covered by this investigation are iron mechanical transfer drive components, whether finished or unfinished (
Iron mechanical transfer drive components subject to this investigation are those not less than 4.00 inches (101 mm) in the maximum nominal outer diameter.
Unfinished iron mechanical transfer drive components (
Subject merchandise includes iron mechanical transfer drive components as defined above that have been finished or machined in a third country, including but not limited to finishing/machining processes such as cutting, punching, notching, boring, threading, mitering, or chamfering, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the iron mechanical transfer drive components.
Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of width, design, or iron type (
For purposes of this investigation, a covered product is of “iron” where the article has a carbon content of 1.7 percent by weight or above, regardless of the presence and amount of additional alloying elements.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8483.30.8090, 8483.50.6000, 8483.50.9040, 8483.50.9080, 8483.90.3000, 8483.90.8080. Covered merchandise may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7326.19.0010, 7326.19.0080, 8431.31.0040, 8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 8431.39.0080, and 8483.50.4000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of first request for panel review.
On November 18, 2015, Irving Paper Limited filed a First Request for Panel Review with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Also, on November 18, 2015, additional Requests for Panel Review were filed on behalf of Resolute FP Canada Inc., Port Hawkesbury Paper LP, the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Québec. Panel Review was requested of the U.S. Department of Commerce's final affirmative countervailing duty determination regarding Supercalendered Paper from Canada. This determination was published in the
Paul Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202)-482-5438.
Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) established a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms to the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico established
A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on November 18, 2015, requesting a panel review of the determination and order described above.
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is December 18, 2015);
(b) a Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is January 4, 2016); and
(c) the panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request by Thai Union Group Public Co., Ltd. (Thai Union Group), a producer/exporter of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Thailand, and pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 19 CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on shrimp from Thailand with regard to Thai
Dennis McClure or Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973 or (202) 482-3874, respectively.
On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the
The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,
The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size.
The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus).
Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); (7) certain battered shrimp. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and ten percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried.
The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request from an interested party for a review of an AD order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The information submitted by Thai Union Group supporting its claim that it is the successor-in-interest to Thai Union Frozen demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant such a review.
In accordance with the above-referenced regulation, the Department is
In determining whether one company is the successor-in-interest to another, the Department examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base.
In its October 5 and October 21, 2015, submissions, Thai Union Group provided information to demonstrate that it is the successor-in-interest to Thai Union Frozen. Thai Union Group states that the company's management, production facilities and customer/supplier relationships have not changed as a result of the corporate name change. To support its claims, Thai Union Group submitted the following documents: (1) Resolutions passed at a board of directors' meeting for the company as well as shareholder meeting minutes, demonstrating approval of the name change;
Based on the evidence on the record, we preliminarily find that Thai Union Group is the successor-in-interest to Thai Union Frozen. We find that Thai Union Group operates as the same business entity as Thai Union Frozen and that its Board of Directors, management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers have not changed as a result of its name change. Thus, we preliminarily find that Thai Union Group should receive the same antidumping duty cash-deposit rate with respect to the subject merchandise as Thai Union Frozen, its predecessor company.
Should our final results remain the same as these preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by Thai Union Group at Thai Union Frozen's cash deposit rate, effective on the publication date of our final results.
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 14 days after the publication of this notice.
Interested parties that wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 14 days of publication of this notice.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of this changed circumstance review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or
We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(ii).
International Trade Administration
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Maria D'Andrea, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Tel. (202) 482-1550,
The United States and Korea negotiated the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (the “Agreement”) which was implemented into U.S. law pursuant to the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (“the Act”). Under the provisions of the Act, textile and apparel goods must contain fibers, yarns, and fabrics produced in Korea or the United States to receive duty-free tariff treatment. The Agreement also provides for the establishment of a list of specific fibers, yarns, and fabrics that are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from producers in the United States. Articles containing these commercially unavailable fibers, yarns, and fabrics are also entitled to duty-free or preferential duty treatment despite not being produced in the United States.
The list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision of the Agreement and the Act. Under Section 202(o) of the Act (“the commercial availability provision”), interested entities from Korea or the United States have the right to request that a specific fiber, yarn, or fabric be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fibers, yarns, and fabrics. This right becomes effective when the Agreement enters into force.
Section 202(o)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the President establish procedures for parties to follow when exercising the right to make these requests. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA), which issues procedures and acts on requests through the Office of Textiles and Apparel (“OTEXA”).
The intent of these procedures is to foster the trade in U.S. and Korean textile and apparel articles by allowing non-originating fibers, yarns, and fabrics to be placed on or removed from a list of items not available in commercial quantities, on a timely basis, and in a manner that is consistent with normal business practice. To this end, these procedures are intended to facilitate the transmission, on a timely basis, of requests for commercial availability determinations and offers to supply the products that are the subject of the requests; have the market indicate the availability of the supply of the subject products; make available promptly, to interested entities and parties, information received regarding the requests for products and offers to supply; ensure wide participation by interested entities and parties; provide careful scrutiny of information provided to substantiate order requests and responses of offers to supply; and provide timely public dissemination of information used by CITA in making commercial availability determinations.
For a fiber, yarn or fabric to be added to Appendix 4-B-1, an interested entity must submit to CITA a Request for a Commercial Availability Determination (“Request”) which states that the subject product is not commercially available in the United States within a commercially reasonable timeframe (
The information collected by CITA from Requests, Responses and Rebuttals will be used to determine whether the subject product is available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States under the commercial availability provision of the Act. Requests, Responses, and Rebuttals must identify confidential information. Entities submitting confidential information in their Requests, Responses, or Rebuttals to CITA must submit both a public and a confidential version of their submissions. If the submissions are accepted, the public submissions or public versions of submissions will be posted on the dedicated commercial availability section of the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA)'s Web site. Business confidential information will not be shared with the public. Requestors and potential suppliers of the product named in the Request may use the public version as a basis for Responses and Rebuttals.
Each submission containing factual information for CITA's consideration must be accompanied by the appropriate certification regarding the accuracy of the factual information. With each electronic and original signed submission that contains factual information, an interested entity must file a certification of due diligence, attesting to the accuracy and authenticity of the submission. If the interested entity has legal counsel or other representative, the legal counsel or other representative must also file a certification of due diligence with each electronic and original signed submissions that contains factual
All submissions for a commercial availability proceeding pursuant to these procedures (
Brackets must be placed around all business confidential information contained in submissions. Documents containing business confidential information must have a bolded heading stating “Confidential Version.” Attachments considered business confidential information must have a heading stating “Business Confidential Information.” Documents, including those submitted via email, provided for public release must have a bolded heading stating “Public Version” and all the business confidential information must be deleted from public versions, and substituted with an adequate public summary.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of a Letter of Authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to the City of Seattle's Department of Transportation (SDOT) for the take of eight species of marine mammals incidental to pile driving activities associated with the Elliot Bay Seawall Project (EBSP).
Effective from October 22, 2015, through August 31, 2016.
The LOA and supporting documentation are available for review on the Internet at:
Zach Hughes, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301-427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The total number of potentially harassed marine mammals was well below the authorized limits, with the exception of the California sea lion. The reported take for California sea lion for the 2014-2015 Letter of Authorization, by Level B harassment only, exceeded the annually authorized level. Please see the monitoring report at
Because this revision of the estimated number of California sea lions constitutes less than 0.1 percent of the population for California sea lions, and is the same kind of take anticipated in the regulations, it remains consistent with the determinations of negligible impact and small numbers, and our subsistence findings for the specified activity and remaining years of the issued regulations for the EBSP.
NMFS has issued an LOA to SDOT authorizing the Level B harassment of marine mammals incidental to pile driving activities associated with the EBSP at Seattle, WA. Take of marine mammals will be minimized through implementation of the following mitigation measures: (1) Limited impact pile driving; (2) containment of impact pile driving; (3) additional sound attenuation measures; (4) ramp-up of pile-related activities; (5) marine mammal exclusion zones; and (6) shutdown and delay procedures. SDOT will also conduct visual monitoring and underwater acoustic monitoring for mitigation and research purposes. Reports will be submitted to NMFS at the time of request for a renewal of the LOA, and a final comprehensive report, which will summarize all previous reports and assess cumulative impacts, will be submitted before the rule expires.
Issuance of this LOA is based on the results of the monitoring reports that verified that the total number of potentially harassed marine mammals was below the authorized limits, with the exception of the California sea lion (as discussed above). Based on these findings and the information discussed in the preamble to the final rule, the activities described under the LOA will have a negligible impact on the marine mammal stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stocks for subsistence uses. No injury, serious injury, or mortality of the affected species is anticipated.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of three collections of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by “Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants”,” and Collection Numbers 3038-0068, 3038-0083, and 3038-0088 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Gregory Scopino, Special Counsel, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5496; email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
• OMB Control No. 3038-0068 (Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, and Portfolio Compression Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).
• OMB Control No. 3038-0083 (Orderly Liquidation Termination Provision in Swap Trading Relationship Documentation for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).
• OMB Control No. 3038-0088 (Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by “Conflicts of Interest Policies and Procedures by Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers,” and Collection Number 3038-0078 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Jacob Chachkin, Special Counsel, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5496, email:
Under the PRA,
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “High-Cost Mortgage and Homeownership Counseling Amendments to the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z).”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before December 28, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
An amendment to TILA, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), imposes, among other things, various disclosure and other requirements on certain creditors offering high-cost mortgages to consumers. The Bureau promulgated its Regulation Z to implement TILA, as required by the statute. The Bureau enforces TILA as to certain creditors and advertisers. TILA also contains a private right of action for consumers and provides enhanced remedies to consumers in high-cost mortgages for violations of HOEPA.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B) 12 CFR 1002.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before January 25, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
The ECOA also prescribes creditors to inform applicants of decisions made on credit applications. In particular, where creditors make adverse actions on credit applications or existing accounts, creditors must inform consumers as to why the adverse action was taken, such that credit applicants can challenge errors on their accounts or learn how to become more creditworthy. Creditors must retain all application information for 25 months, including notices sent and any information related to adverse actions.
Finally, the ECOA requires creditors who furnish applicant information to a consumer credit bureau to reflect participation of the applicant's spouse, if the spouse if permitted to use or contractually liable on the account.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information relating to testing and recordkeeping requirements in the Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers (16 CFR part 1205), approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0091. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0058, by any of the following methods:
Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:
In addition, section 14(a) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)) requires manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of a consumer product subject to a consumer product safety standard to issue a certificate stating that the product complies with all applicable consumer product safety standards. Section 14(a) of the CPSA also requires that the certificate of compliance must be based on a test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program. The information collection is necessary because these regulations require manufacturers and importers to establish and maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for testing and labeling to support the certification of compliance.
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information associated with the Commission's Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station Antennas (16 CFR part 1204), approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0006. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0056, by any of the following methods:
Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information associated with the Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 0 Through 6X (16 CFR part 1615); and the Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 7 Through 14 (16 CFR part 1616), approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0027. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0055, by any of the following methods:
Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information required in the Requirements for Electrically Operated Toys or Other Electrically Operated Articles Intended for Use by Children (16 CFR part 1505), approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0035. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0057, by any of the following methods:
Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
Department of Defense.
Notice of meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Judicial Proceedings since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (“the Judicial Proceedings Panel” or “the Panel”). The meeting is open to the public.
A meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel will be held on Friday, December 11, 2015. The Public Session will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at 4:45 p.m.
The Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
Ms. Julie Carson, Judicial Proceedings Panel, One Liberty Center, 875 N. Randolph Street, Suite 150, Arlington, VA 22203. Email:
This public meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 25, 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 Defense Health Agency, TRICARE Policy and Benefits Office, 16401 E. Centretech Parkway, Aurora Co, 80011-9066, ATTN: Mr. Doug McBroom, or call 303-676-3533.
Respondents are TRICARE beneficiaries choosing to enroll in TRICARE Prime for the first time, change their current enrollment, or dis-enroll using the DD Form 2876, instead of using the BWE web portal or calling their Managed Care Support Contractor. The completed form is used by the TRICARE Managed Care Support Contractors to formally update the enrollment, enrollment change or dis-enrollment. The beneficiary is notified via email or postcard, which refers them to the MilConnect Web site to confirm the enrollment/change. A beneficiary can also call their Managed Care Support Contractor to confirm the change.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-69 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act
The Government of France has requested a possible sale of two-hundred (200) AGM-114K1A Hellfire Missiles; Hellfire Missile conversion kits; blast fragmentation sleeves and installation kits; containers; and transportation. The estimated cost of MDE is $25 million. The total estimated cost is $30 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the capability of a NATO ally. France is a major political and economic power in Europe and a key democratic partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability around the world. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist France to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability.
The additional missiles will meet France's operational requirements for a precision guided tactical missile for its Tigre Attack Helicopter. The purchase will directly support French forces actively engaged in operations in Mali and Northern Africa, providing them the capability to successfully engage targets with minimal collateral damage. France will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
There is no principal contractor for this sale as the missiles are coming from U.S. Army stock. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives in France.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. AGM-114K1A: The highest level for release of the K1A semi active laser is SECRET, based upon the software. Software documentation (
2. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives,Transmittal 0O-15 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Date: 18 June 2012.
Military Department: Army.
(iii)
This transmittal reports that 28 fewer of the EDA M1A1 tanks will be refurbished than were reported in the previous transmittal. It also reports the potential sale of 50 M1A1 tanks from
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-59 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Also included with this request are the following non-MDE items: thirty (30) GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs); five (5) Hellfire M34 Dummy Missiles; thirty (30) GBU-49 Enhanced Laser Guided Bombs; thirty (30) GBU-54 Laser JDAMS; twenty-six (26) BRU-71A Bomb Racks; thirteen (13) M-299 launchers; six (6) MQ-9 weaponization kits and installation; and two (2) AN/AWM-103 test suites. Additionally, this transmittal includes personnel weapons training/equipment; spare parts; support equipment; publications and technical data; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; and other related
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Italy requested a possible sale of Major Defense Equipment (MDE) items including one hundred and fifty-six (156) AGM-114R2 HELLFIRE II Missiles; eight (8) HELLFIRE II, M36-E8 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); and thirty (30) GBU-12 Laser Guided Bombs. Non-MDE items requested include thirty (30) GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs); five (5) HELLFIRE M34 Dummy Missiles; thirty (30) GBU-49 Enhanced Laser Guided Bombs; thirty (30) GBU-54 Laser JDAMs; twenty-six (26) Bomb Racks; six (6) MQ-9 weaponization kits and installation; thirteen (13) M-299 launchers; two (2) AN/AWM-103 test suites; personnel weapons training/equipment; spare parts; support equipment; publications and technical data; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; and other related elements of program and logistics support. The estimated MDE value is $18 million. The estimated total value is $129.6 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the capability of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally that has been an integral member of every recent NATO and U.S.-led operation. It is in the U.S. strategic interest to support Italy's security contributions as a capable and interoperable ally. Italy is a major political and economic power in NATO and a key democratic partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability around the world.
Italy requests to arm its MQ-9 Reapers for three primary reasons: 1) to support and enhance burden sharing in NATO and coalition operations; 2) to increase operational flexibility; and 3) to increase the survivability of Italian deployed forces. Italy currently operates the MQ-9 system and will have no difficulty incorporating this added capability into its Air Force.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be the General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems, Inc. of San Diego, California. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Italy.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. All defense articles/services have been approved for release by our foreign disclosure office.
(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:
1.
No new Critical Program Information or Technology is involved in the weaponization process. The equipment proposed in this weaponization process for the Italian MQ-9 includes:
• BRU-7A Bomb Racks, M-299 launchers, MQ-9 weaponization kits to include pylons, AN/AWM-103 test suites, and associated operational flight programming (OFP).
2.
3. The HELLFIRE II Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) consists of a functional guidance section coupled to an inert missile bus. The CATM is used for flight training and cannot be launched. The missile has an operational semi-active laser seeker that can search for and lock-on to laser-designated targets. The CATM functions like a tactical missile (without launch capability) during captive carry on the aircraft, making it suitable for training the aircrew in simulated HELLFIRE missile target acquisition and lock.
4.
Information revealing the probability of destroying common/unspecified targets, the number of simultaneous lasers the laser seeker head can discriminate, and data on the radar/infra-red frequency is classified CONFIDENTIAL.
5.
Information revealing target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures and the electromagnetic environment is classified SECRET.
Information revealing the probability of destroying common/unspecified targets is classified CONFIDENTIAL.
6.
Information revealing target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures and the
Information revealing the probability of destroying common/unspecified targets, the number of simultaneous lasers the laser seeker head can discriminate, and data on the radar/infra-red frequency is classified CONFIDENTIAL.
7.
Information revealing target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures and the electromagnetic environment is classified SECRET.
Information revealing the probability of destroying common/unspecified targets, the number of simultaneous lasers the laser seeker head can discriminate, and data on the radar/infra-red frequency is classified CONFIDENTIAL.
8. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
9. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
10. Release of this technology has been approved via appropriate technology transfer and foreign disclosure processes.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Atlantic Bridge Project (Project), which would involve construction and operation of facilities by Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC (Maritimes), collectively referred to as the Applicants, in New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity.
A Notice of Intent (NOI) for this Project was issued by the FERC on April 27, 2015. Since that time, some additional stakeholders not previously identified have been added to the environmental mailing list. In addition, the Applicants are proposing to use additional available horsepower at a compressor station in New York that was not previously included during the pre-filing process. As a result, this notice announces a supplemental scoping period to gather input from the public and agencies on the Project.
You can make a difference by providing us
If you sent comments on this Project to the Commission under Docket No. PF15-12-000, prior to the opening of the CP docket on October 22, 2015, you do not need to refile your comments under Docket No. CP16-9-000. We have received your comments and will use the information in the preparation of the EA.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement and the Project is approved, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number (CP16-9) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The Applicants plan to construct, install, own, operate, and maintain the proposed Atlantic Bridge Project, which (as described more fully below) would involve expansion of its existing pipeline and compressor station facilities located in New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.
The proposed Atlantic Bridge Project, which was reduced in scope after the issuance of the first NOI, includes replacing about 6.3 miles of existing 26-inch-diameter mainline pipeline with 42-inch-diameter pipeline. About 4.0 miles of the pipeline replacement would be in Westchester County, New York (Stony Point Discharge L&R). The remaining 2.3 miles of pipeline replacement would be in Fairfield County, Connecticut (Southeast Discharge L&R).
In addition to the pipeline facilities, the Applicants plan to modify/uprate three existing compressor stations, construct one new compressor station, modify five existing metering and regulating (M&R) stations and one regulator station, and construct one new M&R station to replace an existing station. The modifications and uprating to the existing compressor stations would occur in Rockland County, New York and New Haven and Windham Counties, Connecticut, and would add a total additional 18,800 horsepower to the Applicants' pipeline system. The new compressor station would be located in Norfolk County, Massachusetts and would include a new 7,700 horsepower gas-fired compressor unit. The modifications to the five existing Algonquin M&R stations and one regulator station would occur in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine to accept the new gas flows associated with the Project. The new M&R station to replace an existing station would be constructed in New London County, Connecticut. The Applicants would also need to construct a number of pig
The proposed Atlantic Bridge Project has been modified since the issuance of the NOI to include uprating of existing horsepower at the Stony Point Compressor Station in Rockland County, New York. The proposed uprate would involve the removal of a software control and would not require any facility construction or ground disturbance.
The general locations of the Project facilities are shown in Appendix 2.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This discovery process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation and maintenance of the planned Project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use, including residential, commercial, and prime farmland uses;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife, including migratory birds;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• traffic and transportation;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary and will be published and distributed to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section of this notice, beginning on page 2.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to update the project status in our ongoing consultation with applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by the Applicants. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. We encourage government representatives who receive this notice to notify their constituents about this proposed Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. This list also includes the affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities and proposed workspaces, and anyone who submits comments on the Project.
We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the Project.
When we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 3).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, now that the Applicants have filed their application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. As indicated in the Notice of Application for the Project issued on November 5, 2015, the deadline for motions to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10) close on November 27, 2015. However, those individuals who were not previously noticed in this proceeding may request to intervene out of time, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.214(d).
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Any public meetings or site visits that are conducted by our staff will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On November 12, 2015, Susan Raymond 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 Powell Mesa Micro-Hydropower Project would have an installed capacity of 7.6 kilowatts (kW), and would be located at the end of an existing 12-inch pipeline used to control overflow from Susan Raymond's irrigation system. The project would be located near the Town of Hotchkiss, in Delta County, Colorado.
The proposed project would have a total installed capacity of 7.6 kW.
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
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations, using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
On November 12, 2015, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff conducted a technical conference to understand PJM Interconnection, L.L.C's (PJM) application of its Order No. 1000-compliant
• The process for planning for individual Transmission Owner FERC-filed planning criteria in Form No. 715;
• the process and method PJM uses to track criteria
• the difference, if any, between local transmission maintenance and local transmission planning;
• which categories of transmission projects included in the RTEP are considered to be selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation;
• the process for reclassifying Supplemental Projects as Regional Projects or Subregional Projects selected in the RTEP for purposes of cost allocation, including requirements to open proposal windows for these projects;
• whether, pursuant to section 1.5.8 of its Operating Agreement, PJM should have opened a proposal window for baseline project b2582 under its current tariff and whether other factors justify the manner in which the project was planned; and
• how the transmission planning process used by each PJM transmission owner for Supplemental Projects complies with Order No. 890,
Commenters need not address every question and may provide comments on relevant issues other than those listed above. These comments are due no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Thursday, December 10, 2015. Reply comments are due on or before 5:00 p.m. EST January 7, 2016. The written comments will be included in the formal record of the proceeding, which, together with the record developed to date, will form the basis for further Commission action.
For more information about this Notice, please contact:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company 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 October 26, 2015, Karl Knuchel, attorney for the estate of Mildred Carter, (Howard Carter preceded Mildred Carter in death) (transferor) and Allen Rae Carter (transferee) filed an application for the transfer of the license of the Pine Creek Hydroelectric Project No. 8546 to Allen Rae Carter. Mildred Carter, now deceased, was the surviving licensee on the project. Pursuant to Mildred Carter's will, her estate seeks to transfer the project to her son, Allen Rae Carter. The project is located on Pine Creek in Park County, Montana.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: 30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, comments, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened in this proceeding commencing at 9:00 a.m. EST on December 2, 2015 at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring settlement of the above-referenced docket.
Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations under 18 CFR 385.214.
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
For additional information, please contact John Perkins (202-502-6591) or Frank Kelly (202-502-8185).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final actions.
The purpose of this notice is to announce that between April 16, 2014 and Oct 1, 2015, the Region 2 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), issued one final agency action and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued three final agency actions pursuant to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) regulations codified at 40 CFR 52.21.
The effective dates for the above determinations are delineated in the chart in the
Mr. Frank Jon, Environmental Engineer of the Permitting Section, Air Programs Branch, Clean Air and Sustainability Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, at (212) 637-4085.
Pursuant to the PSD regulations, the Region 2 Office of the USEPA, and the NJDEP have made final PSD determinations relative to the facilities listed below:
This notice lists only the facilities that have received final PSD determinations. Anyone who wishes to review these determinations and related materials should contact the following offices:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch—25th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4085.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Permitting Element, Bureau of Preconstruction Permits, 401 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625, (609) 777-0286.
With respect to the final PSD permit for West Deptford Energy, LLC, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(l), a prerequisite to seeking judicial review of the determination under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), is that parties must have previously filed a petition with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of public meeting and public comment.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Executive Committee will host a public meeting convening on Tuesday, December 8, 2015, and adjourning Thursday, December 10, 2015. The primary discussion will focus on the draft reports from the BOSC subcommittee meetings which addressed the research and future direction for the Office of Research and Development's (ORD) National Research Programs: Air, Climate and Energy, Chemical Safety for Sustainability, Homeland Security, Human Health Risk Assessment, Safe and Sustainable Water Resources, Sustainable and Healthy Communities. The Committee will also deliberate on two ORD Cross-Cutting Research Roadmaps: Environmental Justice and Climate Change. There will be a public comment period from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time on December 8, 2015.
For information about registering to attend the meeting or to provide public comment, please see the
The BOSC Executive Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 8, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 9, 2015, from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Thursday, December 10, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time and are approximate.
Questions or correspondence concerning the meeting should be directed to Tom Tracy, Designated Federal Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC 8104 R), Washington, DC 20460, by telephone at 202-564-6518, fax at 202-565-2911or via email at
The Charter of the BOSC states that the advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the Administrator on technical and management aspects of the ORD's research program. Additional information about the BOSC is available at:
Information about Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information about access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tom Tracy, at 202-564-6518 or via email at
Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (doing business as The National Environmental Education Foundation or NEEF) was created by Section 10 of Public Law 101-619, the National Environmental Education Act of 1990. It is a private 501(c)(3) non-profit organization established to promote and support education and training as necessary tools to further environmental protection and sustainable,
For information regarding this Notice of Appointment, please contact Mr. Micah Ragland, Associate Administrator for Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education, U.S. EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. General information concerning NEEF can be found on their Web site at:
This appointee will join the current Board members which include:
• Decker Anstrom (NEEF Chairman), Former U.S. Ambassador, Retired Chairman, The Weather Channel Companies
• Diane Wood (NEEF Secretary) President, National Environmental Education Foundation
• Carlos Alcazar, Founder and Chairman, Culture ONE World
• Megan Reilly Cayten, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Catrinka, LLC
• David M. Kiser (NEEF Treasurer), Vice President, Environment, Health, Safety and Sustainability, International Paper
• Wonya Lucas, President and CEO, Public Broadcasting Atlanta
• Shannon Schuyler, Principal, Corporate Responsibility Leader, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
• Jacqueline M. Thomas, Vice President of Corporate Responsibility, Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.
• Raul Perea-Henze, MD, MPH, Managing Director, HORUS Advisors, Washington, DC
• George Basile, Ph.D., Professor, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
• Jennifer Harper-Taylor, Siemens Foundation (in process)
The Foundation is a charitable and nonprofit corporation whose income is exempt from tax, and donations to which are tax deductible to the same extent as those organizations listed pursuant to section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Foundation is not an agency or establishment of the United States. The purposes of the Foundation are—
(A) subject to the limitation contained in the final sentence of subsection (d) herein, to encourage, accept, leverage, and administer private gifts for the benefit of, or in connection with, the environmental education and training activities and services of the United States Environmental Protection Agency;
(B) to conduct such other environmental education activities as will further the development of an environmentally conscious and responsible public, a well-trained and environmentally literate workforce, and an environmentally advanced educational system;
(C) to participate with foreign entities and individuals in the conduct and coordination of activities that will further opportunities for environmental education and training to address environmental issues and problems involving the United States and Canada or Mexico.
The Foundation develops, supports, and/or operates programs and projects to educate and train educational and environmental professionals, and to assist them in the development and delivery of environmental education and training programs and studies.
The Foundation has a governing Board of Directors (hereafter referred to in this section as `the Board'), which consists of 13 directors, each of whom shall be knowledgeable or experienced in the environment, education and/or training. The Board oversees the activities of the Foundation and assures that the activities of the Foundation are consistent with the environmental and education goals and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency and with the intents and purposes of the Act. The membership of the Board, to the extent practicable, represents diverse points of view relating to environmental education and training. Members of the Board are appointed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Within 90 days of the date of the enactment of the National Environmental Education Act, and as appropriate thereafter, the Administrator will publish in the
Mr. Robert Garcia, is the Founding Director and Counsel of The City Project, a non-profit legal and policy advocacy team in Los Angeles, California. The City Project works with diverse allies on equal access to (1) healthy green land use through community planning; (2) climate justice; (3) quality education including physical education; (4) health equity; and (5) economic vitality for all, including creating jobs and avoiding displacement. He received the President's Award from the American
President Barack Obama and federal agencies are catapulting The City Project's work on green access to the national level. As the President recognized in dedicating the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, “Too many children . . . especially children of color, don't have access to parks where they can run free, breathe fresh air, experience nature, and learn about their environment. This is an issue of social justice.” Conservation isn't about locking away our natural treasures. “It's about working with communities to open up our glorious heritage to everybody—young and old, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American—to make sure everybody can experience these incredible gifts.”
The National Park Service and the US Army Corps of Engineers agree. Their studies on green access and the Santa Monica Mountains, the San Gabriel Mountains, and the Los Angeles River rely on The City Project's analyses to document that there are disparities in access to green space for people of color and low-income people in Los Angeles, that these disparities contribute to health disparities, and that environmental justice requires agencies to address these disparities. The City Project worked with Ranking Member Raul Grijalva and the House Natural Resources Committee to organize the historic forum on environmental justice, climate, and health. The forum included seven Members of Congress and community advocates at the L.A. River Center in 2015.
He has extensive experience in public policy, legal advocacy, mediation, and litigation involving complex social justice, civil rights, human health, environmental, education, and criminal justice matters. He has influenced the investment of over $43 billion in underserved communities, working at the intersection of equal justice, public health, and the built environment. He served as chairman of the Citizens' School Bond Oversight Committee for five years, helping raise over $27 billion to build new, and modernize existing, public schools as centers of their communities in Los Angeles. He has helped communities create and preserve great urban parks and preserve access to beaches and trails. He has helped diversify support for and access to state resource bonds, with unprecedented levels of support among communities of color and low-income communities, and billions of dollars for urban parks. He served on the Development Team for the National Park Service Healthy Parks, Healthy People Community Engagement eGuide. He served on Cardinal Roger Mahony's Justice and Peace Committee for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund. He received the President's Award from the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice for helping release Geronimo Pratt, the former Black Panther leader, from prison after 27 years for a crime he did not commit. He represented people on Death Row in Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi. Stanford Law School called him a “civil rights giant” and Stanford Magazine “an inspiration.” He is an immigrant who came to the U.S. from Guatemala at age four.
He has lectured widely on the vision for healthy parks, schools, and communities. Recent keynote speeches include conferences at the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New Partners for Smart Growth, and Smithsonian Anacostia Community Museum. Other presentations include Stanford, Yale, Duke, Harvard Law School, Howard, UCLA, USC, Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada, FLAC in Dublin, Ireland, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and National Council of La Raza (NCLR). The City Project [is] working to broaden access to parks and open space for inner-city residents and . . . to fight childhood obesity by guaranteeing that . . . students get enough physical education.”—New York Times.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a teleconference of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC). This teleconference is open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to the specific issues being considered by the FRRCC.
A public teleconference will be held on December 11, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Donna Perla, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator (MC1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; via email at
The purpose of this teleconference is to discuss progress and next steps for actions that were identified as a result of the October 22, 2015 FRRCC meeting, open to the public, in Denver, CO, (see
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The 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 11, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB number.
Comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
1.
The FR 3066a, FR 3066b, FR 3066c, and FR 3066d are the latest iteration of the Federal Reserve Payments Study (FRPS), which has been conducted since 2000. The FRPS originated from a system-wide effort to improve the measurement and public availability of information on volumes and trends in checks and other noncash payments. Despite the retail payments system's critical importance in supporting everyday commerce, there was a significant gap in quantitative information on U.S. retail payments before 2000. The FRPS filled this gap by providing a reliable and transparent non-mandatory survey-based approach to collecting payments industry data on retail payment volumes and trends.
A U.S. payments system that is safe, efficient, and broadly accessible is vital to the U.S. economy, and the Federal Reserve plays an important role in promoting these qualities as a leader, catalyst for change, and provider of payment services to financial institutions and the U.S. Treasury. In 2012, Federal Reserve Financial Services (FRFS), managed by the Reserve Banks, refreshed its strategic direction to focus on meeting the evolving needs of payment system users for end-to-end payment speed, efficiency and security, while remaining true to its longstanding financial services mission to foster the integrity, efficiency and accessibility of the U.S. payment system.
The FRPS helps to support FRFS goals by producing information on aggregate volumes and trends in the payments system and sharing that information with the financial services and payments industry and the public. The aggregate survey results are widely cited in academic working papers and journal articles, industry publications, reported in the media, and used by the public, industry, and the Federal Reserve as the quantitative aggregate benchmark on payments activity in the United States. Questions in the surveys consist primarily of quantitative payment transaction volume data in the form of number-value pairs, and require knowledgeable personnel at participating organizations to reference their confidential commercial and financial records. The surveys also contain a smaller amount of categorical questions (
The Retail Payments Risk Forum (RPRF) and the Retail Payments Office (RPO) play key roles within the Federal Reserve's strategic framework. The mission of the RPRF is to identify, detect, and encourage mitigation of risk in retail payments through research, and through collaboration with industry stakeholders. RPRF will provide leadership and assistance with the surveys, in recognition of the importance of payments security to the FRS and the increasing focus on payments fraud and security of the FRPS. The RPO provides leadership in payments services, operates check and Automated Clearing House (ACH) clearance services, and will continue to support study planning, contractor procurement, contracting, and survey execution.
As the noncash payments system has continued to grow larger and more complex and as policymakers, the industry, and the public face more choices related to the payments system, the Federal Reserve believe that the data collected under the FR 3066 surveys play a crucial role in objectively maintaining and updating quantitative information on the U.S. retail payments system and should be continued in 2016 through 2018. The FRS's role as a trusted leader in payments processing, its essential role in policymaking, and the successful record of the data collected under the FRPS uniquely positions the Federal Reserve to collect these data.
The FR 3066a currently collects information on the national volume (number and value) of major categories and subcategories of established and emerging methods of payment from a nationally representative stratified random sample of depository institutions.
The Federal Reserve currently use data collected from the FR 3066a and FR 3066b to estimate aggregate totals and trends in (1) the number and value of various types of payment and withdrawal transactions processed by financial institutions that hold transaction deposit, prepaid card program, or credit card accounts domiciled in the United States; (2) the number and value of various types of payments that are facilitated by payment networks, payment processors, and payment instrument issuers within the United States; (3) inter- and intra-bank volumes; (4) the usage of different types of prepaid cards; (5) transaction volumes of emerging payment methods; and (6) relevant non-transactional volumes, such as the number of accounts, number of payment cards outstanding, volumes of returned checks, and volumes of third-party payment fraud. Data from these two surveys is also used to estimate volumes and trends in cash usage, which are connected to noncash payment trends, the cash issuance responsibilities of the Federal Reserve, and the cash distribution responsibilities of the Reserve Banks. The information about checks collected from the FR 3066c is currently used to estimate the distribution of checks among broad categories of payers, payees, and purposes. These data help identify what
The FR 3066a and FR 3066b were designed to support a triennial data collection. The Federal Reserve proposes to continue the triennial data collection for 2015 data and to add shorter, annual surveys to update high-priority items from a relatively small set of participants for 2016 data and for 2017 data.
The Federal Reserve proposes to revise the FR 3066a to collect data for the full calendar year 2015 instead of a single month, as was the case in the 2013 survey. This will improve the quality of aggregate estimates by removing the need to annualize monthly data, making the estimates less sensitive to annual seasonality, and providing closer comparability with data collected in FR 3066b. The change from a month to a year does not affect the number of reported items. Because of greater availability and automation of data reporting systems at many depository institutions, this revision is not expected to significantly affect the reporting burden.
The Federal Reserve proposes to revise the data collection processes for the FR 3066a and FR 3066b to more effectively employ adaptive survey methods, supplemented by the use and collection of survey paradata.
In 2013, the FRPS began collecting information on payments fraud from depository institutions responding to FR 3066a, and established baseline aggregate estimates for unauthorized third-party fraud payments by payment type. The Federal Reserve would use new information collected on payments fraud to update totals for 2015 and to estimate trends in unauthorized third-party payments fraud.
The Federal Reserve proposes revisions to the survey questions based on the need to further expand the collection of payments-related fraud and security information, respond to new developments in technology and choices in the payments marketplace, and adjust for lessons learned from the 2013 data collection. Most of the proposed expanded fraud questions would be in the 3066b surveys sent to payment networks, issuers, and processors. The expanded questions on fraud and payments security are based on an attempt to align the questions with the way that various participating organizations have said they already track and compile such information.
In addition, more detailed fraud baseline information would be collected through follow-on studies, including the FR 3066d, or possibly in questions included in another triennial study approved in a future clearance process.
The Federal Reserve proposes revising the FR 3066c data collection process to include check images processed via the Reserve Banks' check service. The additional data are expected to improve the variety and quality of data used to estimate the proportion of checks by categories such as payers, payees, and purposes.
In general, proposed questions have been added requesting the total payment transactions of each major payment type to be allocated to consumer and business categories. The current survey includes such questions for cards only.
Most proposed changes are specific to the section or type of payment as described below.
1. Institution Profile: In the current version, respondents verify which affiliates are associated with their survey responses and provide corrections. The Federal Reserve proposes to remove the verification step, reducing the amount of up-front analysis required of the respondent. Some relatively simple qualitative questions would be included that are expected to help tailor the survey to the institution, reducing overall response time.
The Federal Reserve proposes to change the language describing customer deposit accounts to better reflect the types of accounts from which payments are made. The Federal Reserve also proposes adding questions on sweep balances that would be reported separately to aid in understanding related payment volumes.
The proposed revision would reduce the number of verifications required which is proportional to the complexity of the participating institution.
2. Checks:
a. Check Payments: The proposed check payments section would include 8 questions compared with 5 questions in the current survey, for a net increase of 3 questions.
b. Check Deposits: The Federal Reserve proposes adding questions regarding ATM imaging of paper check deposits both at the institution's own ATMs and at “foreign” institution ATMs through deposit-sharing agreements. Respondents would report remotely created checks they collect, including those created by the bank of first deposit and by client customers. The proposed check deposits section would include 23 questions compared with 11 in the current survey, for a net increase of 12 questions.
c. Outgoing and On-Us Check Returns: The Federal Reserve proposes adding questions to obtain detail about the reasons for returned checks, particularly unauthorized fraud-related returns. The proposed section would include 12 questions compared with 5 questions in the current survey, for a net increase of 7 questions.
3. ACH Credits and ACH Debits: The Federal Reserve proposes adding questions that sum network and in-house on-us volume of payments.
4. ACH returns: The Federal Reserve proposes adding this section. Respondents would report the number and value of returned ACH transactions drawn on customer accounts, which are outgoing for ACH debit transactions and incoming for returned ACH credit transactions. Respondents would report reasons for returned ACH transactions, particularly unauthorized fraud-related reasons. The proposed new section includes 10 new questions.
5. Wire transfer originations: The Federal Reserve proposes adding questions regarding wire originations allocated to interbank (over a network or directly exchanged) and book transfers. The proposed section includes 13 questions compared with 10 questions in the current survey, a net increase of 3 questions.
6. Wire transfer receipts: The Federal Reserve proposes adding this new section with questions on wire transfers received by beneficiaries allocated to categories as with originations. Respondents would also report wire receipts allocated to interbank (over a network or directly exchanged) and book transfers. The proposed new section includes 13 new questions.
7. General-Purpose Debit and Prepaid Cards: The Federal Reserve proposes restructuring this section to better match developments in technology and established categories by which depository institutions track transactions. Proposed revisions include adding questions on the number of debit and prepaid cards provisioned to mobile devices and digital wallets, and questions to allocate volumes into person-present/merchant point-of-sale volumes and remote volumes. Person-present volumes would be further allocated into signature, PIN, or other/no signature required. Questions in the current survey allocating prepaid accounts and cards to those managed by the responding institution and those managed by a third-party are proposed to be replaced with allocations between reloadable and non-reloadable/gift accounts and cards. The proposed section includes 33 questions compared with 20 questions in the current survey, a net increase of 13 questions.
8. General-Purpose Credit Cards: The Federal Reserve proposes a restructuring of questions so that network transactions would be separated from non-network transactions. The Federal Reserve proposes adding questions to collect information on consumer accounts allocated by revolving balances and current balances. As with debit and prepaid cards, the Federal Reserve proposes restructuring this section to better match developments in technology and established categories by which depository institutions track transactions, and to add questions on the number of credit cards provisioned to mobile devices and digital wallets. The proposed section includes 29 questions compared with 16 in the current survey, for a net increase of 13 questions.
9. Cash Withdrawals and Deposits: The Federal Reserve proposes adding questions on ATM cards in force, and additional clarifying questions on ATM terminals at branch locations. The proposed section includes 34 questions compared with 23 questions in the current survey, for a net increase of 11 questions.
10. Alternative Payment Initiation Methods: The Federal Reserve proposes adding questions on business-to-person and business-to-business payments, in parallel with questions on person-to-person payments in the current survey. The proposed section includes 12 questions compared with 7 questions in the current survey, for a net increase of 5 questions.
11. Unauthorized Third-Party Payment Fraud: The Federal Reserve proposes restructuring the section for debit, prepaid, and credit cards as described above. The Federal Reserve also proposes to add questions on fraudulent wire transfers originated. The proposed section includes 23 questions compared with 12 questions in the current survey, for a net increase of 11 questions.
The Federal Reserve proposes to add new surveys to cover ATM networks and ATM processors, in response to demand for richer information about developments in the ATM industry. In addition, the Federal Reserve added a new transit system operator survey that would be sent to such participants in place of the private-label prepaid card processor and issuer survey. This survey is designed to be easier to understand and more consistent with standard reports of organizations that operate transit systems. Similarly, the Federal Reserve added an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) processor survey which would be sent to organizations that contract with the government to administer such programs in place of the private-label prepaid card issuer and processor survey.
The Federal Reserve proposes including new questions in each of the new and existing surveys on the number and value of fraudulent transactions. The new questions would request fraud transactions by type of fraud using established issuer-reported categories, such as lost card, stolen card, counterfeit card, and stolen card data. Fraud transactions would also be allocated by card entry mode and card verification methods in parallel to the allocations requested for transactions. Where appropriate, the Federal Reserve proposes to request information on issued cards and payment device acceptance terminals associated with reported payment volumes.
Transaction value distributions in the current surveys contained only one value category above $50, overlooking a significant portion of transactions in some cases. The Federal Reserve proposes to revise distributions in the surveys to include breakouts above $50 to better reflect higher-value transactions. For the credit card surveys, the new higher-value transaction categories would include two new categories to obtain $50-$99.99, $100-$499.99, and $500 and above. Transaction value distributions in other surveys would be tailored to what is known from previously collected value-distribution information. For example, the bill payment surveys, which have much smaller proportions of lower-value transactions, would involve the introduction of a richer set of higher-value categories and the removal of lower-value categories.
The Federal Reserve also proposes that various stock variables, such as the number of cards, be reported as the average of monthly totals over the calendar year, replacing the reporting of stocks as of December 31 as requested in the current surveys.
Additional proposed revisions to the surveys contained in the FR 3066b are as follows:
1. General-Purpose Card Network Surveys, (credit card, debit card, and prepaid card): The Federal Reserve proposes restructuring all the card network surveys to better match established categories by which card networks track transactions. In particular, person-present card transactions will be tracked by entry mode (
2. Private-Label Credit Card Merchant Issuer Survey, Private-Label Credit Card Processor Survey, General-Purpose Prepaid Card Processor Survey, and Private-Label Prepaid Card Issuer and Processor Survey: Similar to card network surveys, the Federal Reserve proposes restructuring the transaction entry mode and card verification method categories to better reflect standard industry reports, but in less detail compared with the general purpose card networks. Proposed questions on fraud allocations would be similar, but simpler, as well. The proposed private-label credit card merchant issuer survey includes 69 questions compared with 36 in the current survey for a net increase of 33 questions. The proposed private-label credit card processor survey includes 69 questions compared with 35 in the current survey for a net increase of 34 questions. The proposed general-purpose prepaid card processor survey includes 94 questions compared with 59 in the current survey for a net increase of 35 questions. The proposed private-label prepaid card issuer and processor survey includes 76 questions compared with 48 in the current survey for a net increase of 28 questions.
3. Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) Card Processor Survey: EBT processors reported their volumes in the current private-label prepaid card issuer and processor survey. Transaction types in the proposed EBT survey would be broken down into the main types of EBT card programs and questions about types of credits and loads would not be included, making the reporting form more relevant for this group of processors. The proposed EBT card processor survey includes 74 questions compared with 48 in the current private-label prepaid card issuer and processor survey for a net increase of 26 questions.
4. Automated Teller Machine (ATM) Network and ATM Processor Surveys: The Federal Reserve proposes adding surveys regarding ATM transaction volumes, including cash withdrawals by debit, prepaid, and credit cards, deposits of cash or checks, and other general types of ATM transactions. Respondents would report the number of active and total ATMs and allocate them between those that accept chip cards and those that do not. Chip card acceptance terminals would be allocated between those that use contact and contactless chip-acceptance technology.
a. Automated Teller Machine Card Network Survey: Respondents would consist of the domestic ATM networks in the United States. Most respondents also operate general-purpose debit card networks. The proposed number of questions would be 24.
b. Automated Teller Machine Card Processor: Respondents would consist of independent service operators and ATM transaction processors. The proposed number of questions would be 24.
5. Alternative Payment Initiation Method Processor Surveys: The Federal Reserve proposes adding questions regarding fraudulent transactions and, where relevant, doing so by transaction type.
a. Person-to-Person (P2P) and Money Transfer Payment Survey: The Federal Reserve proposes adding new questions on fraud broken down by origination channel. The proposed number of questions would be 33 compared with 22 in the current survey, for a net increase of 11 questions.
b. Online Bill Payment Processor Survey: The Federal Reserve proposes adding new questions on the bill payment funding method broken down by type. Fraudulent transactions would be broken down by origination channel. The proposed number of questions would be 27 compared with 20 in the current survey, for a net increase of 7 questions.
c. Walk-In Bill Payment Processor Survey: The proposed number of questions would be 20 compared with 20 in the current survey, for a net increase of 0 questions.
d. Deferred Payment Processor Survey: The proposed number of questions would be 20 compared with 19 in the current survey, for a net increase of 1 question.
e. Private-Label ACH Debit Card Processor Survey: The Federal Reserve proposes adding a new question regarding the number of active cards. The proposed number of questions would be 18 compared with 21 in the current survey, for a net decrease of 3 questions.
f. Far-field RFID Payment Processor Survey: The proposed number of questions would be 15 compared with 16 in the current survey, for a net decrease of 1 question.
g. Secure Online Payment Processor Survey: Processors would report secure online payment transactions in 2015, broken down into types. The proposed number of questions would be 16 compared with 13 in the current survey, for a net increase of 3 questions.
h. Mobile Wallet Processor Survey: The Federal Reserve proposes adding new questions regarding the number of active and total cards provisioned to the mobile wallet. The proposed number of questions would be 17 compared with 8 in the current survey, for a net increase of 9 questions.
Unlike the FR 3066a, the FR 3066b is designed as a census. The project team would work with a contractor to identify the final list of networks, processors, and issuers from which to collect data. Estimation of national aggregate payment volumes from the survey is based on developing a complete population frame of all relevant organizations and requesting data from each. The survey would be broken up into parts and respondents would only provide information in the sections of the survey applicable to their organizations. In cases where a response is not returned, the missing items would need to be imputed using publically available information and analysis of data from similar organizations that did provide data.
FR
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB number.
Comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by
• Agency Web site:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Email:
• FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.
• Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
• Community Reinvestment Act, (12 U.S.C. 2905);
• Competitive Equality Banking Act, (12 U.S.C. 3806);
• Expedited Funds Availability Act, (12 U.S.C. 4008);
• Truth in Lending Act, (15 U.S.C. 1604);
• Fair Credit Reporting Act, (15 U.S.C. 1681s(e));
• Equal Credit Opportunity Act, (15 U.S.C. 1691b);
• Electronic Funds Transfer Act, (15 U.S.C. 1693b & 1693o-2);
• Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, (15 U.S.C. 6801(b)); and
• Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Section 102 (42 U.S.C. 4012a).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
8:30 a.m. on Monday, November 30, 2015.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th Street entrance between Constitution Avenue and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Open.
On the day of the meeting, you will be able to view the meeting via webcast from a link available on the Board's public Web site.
1. Implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to the emergency lending authority under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act.
Notes: 1. The staff memo to the Board will be made available to attendees on the day of the meeting in paper and the background material will be made available on a compact disc (CD). If you require a paper copy of the entire document, please call Penelope Beattie on 202-452-3982. The documentation will not be available until about 20 minutes before the start of the meeting.
2. This meeting will be recorded for the benefit of those unable to attend. The webcast recording and a transcript of the meeting will be available after the meeting on the Board's public Web site
Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955.
You may access the Board's public Web site at
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 5874-58485, dated September 29, 2015) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the Division of Global Health Protection, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in its entirety the title and the mission and function statements for the
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
Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (PCNASP)—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the United States and results in approximately 130,000 deaths per year. Stroke outcomes depend upon the rapid recognition of signs and symptoms of stroke, prompt transport to a treatment facility, and early rehabilitation. Improving outcomes requires a coordinated systems approach involving pre-hospital care, emergency department and hospital care, rehabilitation, prevention of complications, and ongoing secondary prevention.
Through the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (PCNASP), CDC has been continuously working to measure and improve acute stroke care using well-known quality improvement strategies coupled with frequent evaluation of results. PCNASP awardees are state health departments who work with participating hospitals and EMS agencies in their jurisdictions to improve quality of care for stroke patients.
Nine awardees were funded under five-year cooperative agreements effective July 1, 2015. Awardees and their selected hospital partners will systematically collect and report data on stroke care data across the continuum of care which includes pre-hospital (EMS), in-hospital, and post-hospital phases of care. In addition, PCNASP awardees will also request information from hospitals that admit and treat stroke patients in awardees' jurisdictions. This information is needed to understand the capacity and infrastructure of the systems for acute stroke care.
Hospitals will transmit pre-hospital and post-hospital information to their awardee quarterly. The average burden per response is 15 minutes for pre-hospital and post-hospital information transmission. There is no burden for hospitals to transmit in-hospital data, because awardees use their own processes to extract in-hospital data from hospitals' electronic systems. Each hospital will collect and transmit hospital inventory information to its PCNASP awardee annually. This average burden per response is 30 minutes.
The average burden per response for awardees to transmit pre-hospital, in-hospital, and post-hospital data to CDC will vary between 30-90 minutes. The burden will be 30 minutes each for independent submission of information relating to the pre-hospital, in-hospital, and post-hospital phases of patient care. Alternatively, the burden will be 90 minutes for awardees who transmit pre-, in-, and post-hospital data as one
All patient, hospital, and EMS provider data that is submitted to CDC by PCNASP awardees will be de-identified and occur through secure data systems. Proposed data elements and quality indicators may be updated over time to include new or revised items based on evolving recommendations and standards in the field to improve the quality of stroke care.
OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 382.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 milligrams (mg)/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Jane Baluss, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6278, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3469.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, are the subject of ANDA 85-056 held by McNeil Ortho Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and were initially approved July 9, 1976. TYLENOL WITH CODEINE is indicated for the relief of mild to moderately severe pain.
In a letter dated January 26, 1993, McNeil Ortho Pharmaceuticals, Inc. notified FDA that TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, were being discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Lachman Consultant Services, Inc. submitted a citizen petition dated April 7, 2015 (Docket No. FDA-2015-P-1153), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that the product was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry entitled “Certification Process for Designated Medical Gases.” The original version of this draft guidance was published by FDA on December 18, 2012. The revised draft guidance, like the original version, describes the certification process created by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) for certain medical gases and explains how FDA plans to implement that process. In response to comments received, we have revised the draft guidance and are reissuing it in draft form to enable the public to review and comment before it is finalized.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by January 25, 2016. Submit either electronic or written comments concerning the collection of information proposed in the draft guidance and attached Form 3864 by January 25, 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 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 revised draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Michael Folkendt, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1900; or Germaine Connolly, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-116), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8331.
In the
Title XI, subtitle B, of FDASIA added sections 575 and 576 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360ddd and 360ddd-1), which created a certification process for designated medical gases. Specifically, section 575 of the FD&C Act provides that oxygen, nitrogen, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, helium, carbon monoxide, and medical air are designated medical gases. Section 576 of the FD&C Act permits any person, beginning on January 5, 2013, to request certification of a medical gas for certain indications and describes when FDA will grant or deny these requests. The December 2012 draft guidance explained how FDA planned to implement this new certification process. Specifically, the December 2012 draft guidance described the medical gases that are eligible for certification, who should submit a certification request, what information should be submitted, and how FDA will evaluate and act on the request. The December 2012 draft guidance also described how the new certification requirement will be enforced. Finally, the draft guidance included a draft certification request form (Form FDA 3864) and form instructions.
This notice announces the availability of a revised draft guidance. In response to comments received, we have revised the discussions of labeling for final use containers (see section II of the revised draft guidance) and documentation by a person or entity that markets a designated medical gas but is not the original manufacturer or marketer of the gas (see section VI of the revised draft guidance). The December 2012 draft guidance also contained a detailed implementation timeline, which has been removed in this revised version because the dates listed in the implementation timeline have all passed. FDA has also made small revisions to improve readability and address minor technical issues. We have not made any changes to the draft certification request form (Form FDA 3864) and form instructions that were attached to the 2012 draft guidance and are attached to this revised guidance. The revised guidance is being reissued in draft form to enable the public to review and comment before it is finalized.
This revised draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). This revised draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the certification process for designated medical gases. 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.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (the PRA), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the collection of information associated with this draft guidance, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
If the original information submitted in connection with a certification request becomes incomplete or inaccurate at any time, including after the request has been granted, the requestor should resubmit its certification request, submitting both a complete new form and a cover letter clearly explaining the purpose of the resubmission and highlighting the updated or corrected information. All updates or corrections to the information originally submitted (other than adding a new manufacturing facility) should be submitted in this manner. If the update or change involves adding a new manufacturing facility, requestors should notify FDA of the change by submitting a “changes being effected” supplement under § 314.70(c) (21 CFR 314.70(c)) or § 514.8(b)(3) (21 CFR 514.8(b)(3)). The requestor should also update its registration and listing information as needed.
As explained in the revised draft guidance, section 576 of the FD&C Act permits any person to file a request for certification of a medical gas as a designated medical gas for certain indications. Based on our records, 31 requesters (“number of respondents” in table 1, row 1) submitted 63 certification requests (“total responses” in table 1, row 1) during 2013. Based on our familiarity with the medical gas certification process, we estimate that preparing and submitting each certification request to FDA (for original submissions and resubmissions) takes approximately 2 hours per requestor (“average burden per response” in table 1). This estimate includes the time that some requestors may need to reply to any followup questions by FDA. For subsequent years, we expect to receive approximately five certification requests annually (including any resubmissions) (“total responses” in table 1, row 2). All certification requests include Form FDA 3864 together with a cover letter explaining the nature of the submission.
As stated previously, requestors should notify FDA of a change that adds a new manufacturing facility by submitting a “changes being effected” supplement under § 314.70(c) or § 514.8(b)(3). Other manufacturing changes,
As described in the revised draft guidance, a person or entity that markets a medical gas but is neither the original manufacturer nor the original marketer should verify and document that the gas they receive is from a certified source. Documentation should include the name of the original manufacturer(s) or marketer(s) as well the applicable new drug application number or numbers associated with the gas, and the information should be verified by reference to the FDA database “[email protected].” Each downstream customer should obtain documentation from their immediate supplier. Proper certification by a supplier or suppliers should be verified initially for existing suppliers and for new suppliers as part of a vendor qualification process. Once a new vendor or existing supplier has been qualified initially and the certification of the gas or gases confirmed, this documentation can consist of an annual letter from the immediate supplier attesting or certifying that the gas was originally manufactured at one or more firms with granted certifications. Based on our knowledge of the medical gas marketplace, we estimate that approximately 4,000 persons or entities that market a medical gas (but are neither the original manufacturer nor the original marketer) (“number of recordkeepers” in table 2) will document and record that the gas they receive is from a certified source. We estimate that each recordkeeper will maintain approximately three records per year (“number of records per recordkeeper” in table 2). We also estimate that it will take approximately 15 minutes per record to obtain and review the documentation (“average burden per recordkeeping” in table 2).
Furthermore, we estimate that 3,500 persons or entities (“number of respondents” in table 3) will provide documentation of certification. We estimate that each responder will provide approximately five disclosures per year (“frequency of disclosure” in table 3). Lastly, we estimate that it will take approximately 15 minutes per disclosure (“hours per disclosure” in table 3). This burden estimate includes the time required to update the disclosure annually and to provide a letter, as described in the revised draft guidance, certifying that the gas was originally manufactured at one or more firms with granted certifications.
As stated in the revised draft guidance, section 576(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act provides that the labeling requirements at sections 503(b)(4) and 502(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)(4) and 352(f), respectively) are deemed to have been met for a designated medical gas if the labeling on final use containers for the medical gas bears: (1) The information required by section 503(b)(4); (2) a warning statement concerning the use of the medical gas as determined by the Secretary by regulation; and (3) appropriate directions and warnings concerning storage and handling. The revised draft guidance states that with regard to the warning statement referred to at section 576(a)(3)(A)(ii)(II) of the FD&C Act, a warning statement applicable to carbon dioxide, helium, and nitrous oxide can be found at § 201.161(a) (21 CFR 201.161(a)). However, no regulation sets forth warning statements for the other designated medical gases or for combinations of designated medical gases. The revised draft guidance states that in the absence of a regulation, FDA recommends that the labeling for final use containers containing nitrogen, medical air, carbon monoxide, or any medically appropriate combination of designated medical gases bear the warning statement set forth at § 201.161(a). The revised draft guidance also states that FDA recommends that the labeling for oxygen final use containers should convey that uninterrupted use of high concentrations of oxygen over a long duration, without monitoring its effect on oxygen content of arterial blood, may be harmful, and that oxygen should not be used on patients who have stopped breathing unless used in conjunction with resuscitative equipment. FDA estimates that approximately 4,000 persons or entities (as described in the revised draft guidance) (“number of respondents” in table 3) will need to include the labeling information described in the revised draft guidance
FDA estimates the information collection resulting from the revised draft guidance as follows:
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public meeting and an opportunity for public comment on Patient-Focused Drug Development for Psoriasis. Patient-Focused Drug Development is part of FDA's performance commitments made as part of the fifth authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA V). The public meeting is intended to allow FDA to obtain patient perspectives on the impact of psoriasis, including on daily life and patient views on treatment approaches. FDA is interested in patients' perspectives for the types of psoriasis with primarily skin symptoms (such plaque psoriasis, nail psoriasis, guttate psoriasis, etc.), patient views on treatment approaches, and decision factors taken into account when selecting a treatment.
The public meeting will be held on March 17, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting must be received by March 10, 2016 (see
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
FDA will post the agenda approximately 5 days before the meeting at:
Meghana Chalasani, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1146, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6525, FAX: 301-847-8443,
FDA has selected psoriasis as the focus of a public meeting under Patient-Focused Drug Development, an initiative that involves obtaining a better understanding of patient perspectives on the severity of a disease and the available therapies for that condition. Patient-Focused Drug Development is being conducted to fulfill FDA performance commitments that are part of the reauthorization of the PDUFA under Title I of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144). The full set of performance commitments is available at
FDA committed to obtain the patient perspective on at least 20 disease areas during the course of PDUFA V. For each disease area, the Agency is conducting a public meeting to discuss the disease and its impact on patients' daily lives, the types of treatment benefit that matter most to patients, and patients' perspectives on the adequacy of the available therapies. These meetings will include participation of FDA review divisions, the relevant patient communities, and other interested stakeholders.
On April 11, 2013, FDA published a notice in the
As part of Patient-Focused Drug Development, FDA will obtain patient and patient stakeholder input on the symptoms of psoriasis that matter most to patients and on current approaches to treating psoriasis. Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated skin condition that is associated with both a physical and psychological burden. It is characterized by areas of red, thickened, scaling skin and may be accompanied by itching or soreness. While there is currently no cure, treatments for psoriasis include topical therapies such as corticosteroids
The questions that will be asked of patients and patient stakeholders at the meeting are listed in this section, organized by topic. For each topic, a brief initial patient panel discussion will begin the dialogue. This will be followed by a facilitated discussion inviting comments from other patient and patient stakeholder participants. In addition to input generated through this public meeting, FDA is interested in receiving patient input addressing these questions through written comments, which can be submitted to the public docket (see
(1) Of all the symptoms that you experience because of your condition, which one to three symptoms have the most significant impact on your life? (Examples may include red, thickened, scaling skin, itching, burning, or soreness, etc.)
(2) Are there specific activities that are important to you but that you cannot do at all or as fully as you would like because of your condition? (Examples of activities may include sleeping through the night, daily hygiene, participation in sports or social activities, intimacy with a spouse or partner, etc.)
(3) How do your symptoms and their negative impacts affect your daily life on the best days? On the worst days?
(4) How have your condition and its symptoms changed over time?
(a) Would you define your condition today as being well managed?
(5) What worries you most about your condition?
(1) What are you currently doing to help treat your condition or its symptoms? (Examples may include prescription medicines, over-the-counter products, phototherapy, and other therapies including non-drug therapies such as diet modification.)
(a) How has your treatment regimen changed over time, and why?
(2) How well does your current treatment regimen control your condition?
(a) How well do your treatments address specific skin symptoms? Which symptoms are not addressed as well?
(b) How well have these treatments worked for you as your condition has changed over time?
(3) What are the most significant downsides to your current treatments, and how do they affect your daily life? (Examples of downsides may include going to the hospital or clinic for treatment, time devoted to treatment, etc.)
(4) Assuming there is no complete cure for your condition, what specific things would you look for in an ideal treatment for your condition?
(a) What would you consider to be a meaningful improvement (for example symptom improvements or functional improvements) in your condition that a treatment could provide?
(5) What factors do you take into account when making decisions about selecting a course of treatment?
(a) What information on the potential benefits of these treatments factors most into your decision?
(b) How do you weigh the potential benefits of these treatments versus the common side effects of the treatments? (Common side effects could include headache, nausea, injection site reactions.)
(c) How do you weigh potential benefits of these treatments versus the less common but serious risks associated with the treatments? (Examples of less common but serious risks are infections, cancer, liver damage, kidney damage, birth defects, blood disorders, etc.)
If you wish to attend this meeting, visit
Patients who are interested in presenting comments as part of the initial panel discussions will be asked to indicate in their registration which topic(s) they wish to address. These patients also must send to
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received no later than January 25, 2016.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
The HIVQM module will also assist RWHAP recipients in meeting the requirement to construct quality assurance structures in their provision of HIV care services. In addition, for recipients and service providers participating in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Incentive Programs, such as the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Records Incentive Program and the Physician Quality Reporting System, the module will be consistent to qualify and comply with the requirements to receive incentives from these programs. Finally, the module will assist HAB in identifying recipients and service providers that are supporting the aims of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy in establishing a system that links HIV positive individuals to continuous and coordinated quality care.
The module will be available for data entry 3 times a year. The module will be accessible via the HRSA Electronic Handbook (EHB) Ryan White Services Report (RSR) portal, an existing online tool that RWHAP recipients already use for required data collection on their services. Recipients will choose which performance measures they want to monitor and enter data accordingly. Reports of performance measures can be generated and reviewed by the recipients or their service providers and can be compared to results at the state, regional, and national levels.
Total Estimated Annualized burden hours:
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than January 25, 2016.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
Information Collection Request Title: Rural Health Care Coordination Network Partnership Program Performance Improvement Measurement System.
OMB No. 0915-xxxx—New.
HRSA specifically requests comments on: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than January 25, 2016.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference. Information Collection Request Title: Rural Network Allied Health Training Program Performance Improvement Measurement System (PIMS). OMB No. 0915-xxxx—New.
Total Estimated Annualized burden hours:
HRSA specifically requests comments on: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Office of the Secretary, DHHS.
Notice.
The Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP), Enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (eFMAP), and disaster-recovery FMAP adjustments for Fiscal Year 2017 have been calculated pursuant to the Social Security Act (the Act). These percentages will be effective from October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017. This notice announces the calculated FMAP rates, in accordance with sections 1101(a)(8) and 1905(b) of the Act, that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will use in determining the amount of federal matching for state medical assistance (Medicaid), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Contingency Funds, Child Support Enforcement collections, Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund, Foster Care Title IV-E Maintenance payments, and Adoption Assistance payments, and the eFMAP rates for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) expenditures. Table 1 gives figures for each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
This notice also contains the increased eFMAPs for CHIP as authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) for fiscal years 2016 through 2019 (October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2019).
Programs under title XIX of the Act exist in each jurisdiction. Programs under titles I, X, and XIV operate only in Guam and the Virgin Islands. The percentages in this notice apply to state expenditures for most medical assistance and child health assistance, and assistance payments for certain social services. The Act provides separately for federal matching of administrative costs.
Sections 1905(b) and 1101(a)(8)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act) require the Secretary of HHS to publish the FMAP rates each year. The Secretary calculates the percentages, using formulas in sections 1905(b) and 1101(a)(8), and calculations by the Department of Commerce of average income per person in each state and for the Nation as a whole. The percentages must fall within the upper and lower limits specified in section 1905(b) of the Act. The percentages for the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands are specified in statute, and thus are not based on the statutory formula that determines the percentages for the 50 states.
Section 1905(b) of the Act specifies the formula for calculating FMAPs as follows:
“Federal medical assistance percentage for any state shall be 100 per centum less the state percentage; and the state percentage shall be that percentage which bears the same ratio to 45 per centum as the square of the per capita income of such state bears to the square of the per capita income of the continental United States (including Alaska) and Hawaii; except that (1) the Federal medical assistance percentage shall in no case be less than 50 per centum or more than 83 per centum, (2) the Federal medical assistance percentage for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa shall be 55 percent . . .”.
Section 4725(b) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 amended section 1905(b) to provide that the FMAP for the District of Columbia for purposes of titles XIX and XXI shall be 70 percent. For the District of Columbia, we note under Table 1 that other rates may apply in certain other programs. In addition, we note the rate that applies for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in certain other programs pursuant to section 1118 of the Act. The rates for the States, District of Columbia and the territories are displayed in Table 1, Column 1.
Section 1905(y) of the Act, as added by section 2001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“Affordable Care Act”), provides for a significant increase in the FMAP for medical assistance expenditures for individuals determined eligible under the new adult group in the state and who will be considered to be “newly eligible” in 2014, as defined in section 1905(y)(2)(A) of the Act. This newly eligible FMAP is 100 percent for Calendar Years 2014, 2015, and 2016, gradually declining to 90 percent in 2020 where it remains indefinitely. In addition, section 1905(z) of the Act, as added by section 10201 of the Affordable Care Act, provides that states that had expanded substantial coverage to low-income parents and nonpregnant adults without children prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, referred to as “expansion states,” shall receive an enhanced FMAP that begins in 2014 for medical assistance expenditures for nonpregnant childless adults who may be required to enroll in benchmark coverage. . These provisions are discussed in more detail in the Medicaid Eligibility proposed rule published on August 17, 2011 (76 FR 51172) and the final rule published on March 23, 2012 (77 FR 17143). This notice is not intended to set forth the newly eligible or expansion state FMAP rates.
For purposes of Title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act, the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), defined in section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act, for each state beginning with fiscal year 2006 is subject to an adjustment pursuant to section 614 of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA), Public Law 111-3. Section 614 of CHIPRA stipulates that a state's FMAP under Title XIX (Medicaid) must be adjusted in two situations.
In the first situation, if a state experiences positive growth in total personal income and an employer in that state has made a significantly disproportionate contribution to a pension or insurance fund, the state's FMAP must be adjusted. Employer pension and insurance fund contributions are significantly disproportionate if the increase in contributions exceeds 25 percent of the increase in total personal income in that state. A
A second situation arises if a state experiences negative growth in total personal income. Beginning with Fiscal Year 2006, section 614(b)(3) of CHIPRA specifies that certain employer pension or insurance fund contributions shall be disregarded when computing the per capita income used to calculate the FMAP for states with negative growth in total personal income. In that instance, for the purposes of calculating the FMAP, for a calendar year in which a state's total personal income has declined, the portion of an employer pension and insurance fund contribution that exceeds 125 percent of the amount of the employer contribution in the previous calendar year shall be disregarded.
We request that states follow the same methodology to determine potential FMAP adjustments for negative growth in total personal income that HHS employs to make adjustments to the FMAP for states experiencing significantly disproportionate pension or insurance contributions. See also the information described in the January 21, 2014
This notice does not contain an FY 2017 adjustment for a major statewide disaster for any state because no state's FMAP decreased by at least three percentage points from FY 2016 to FY 2017.
Section 2105(b) of the Act specifies the formula for calculating the eFMAP rates as follows:
The “enhanced FMAP”, for a state for a fiscal year, is equal to the Federal medical assistance percentage (as defined in the first sentence of section 1905(b)) for the state increased by a number of percentage points equal to 30 percent of the number of percentage points by which (1) such Federal medical assistance percentage for the state, is less than (2) 100 percent; but in no case shall
In addition, Section 2105(b) of the Social Security Act, as amended by Section 2101 of the Affordable Care Act, increases the eFMAP for states by 23 percentage points:
The eFMAP rates are used in the Children's Health Insurance Program under Title XXI, and in the Medicaid program for certain children for expenditures for medical assistance described in sections 1905(u)(2) and 1905(u)(3) of the Act. There is no specific requirement to publish the eFMAP rates. We include them in this notice for the convenience of the states, and display both the normal eFMAP rates (Table 1, Column 2) and the Affordable Care Act's increased eFMAP rates (Table 1, Column 3) for comparison.
Thomas Musco or Rose Chu, Office of Health Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 447D, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201, (202) 690-6870.
Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA), HHS.
Notice.
This quarterly notice lists the OMHA Case Processing Manual (OCPM) manual instructions that were published from July through September 2015. This manual standardizes the day-to-day procedures for carrying out adjudicative functions, in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations and OMHA directives, and gives OMHA staff direction for processing appeals at the OMHA level of adjudication.
Amanda Axeen, by telephone at (571) 777-2705, or by email at
The Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA), a staff division within the Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), administers the nationwide Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing program for Medicare claim, organization and coverage determination, and entitlement appeals under sections 1869, 1155, 1876(c)(5)(B), 1852(g)(5), and 1860D-4(h) of the Social Security Act (the Act). OMHA ensures that Medicare beneficiaries and the providers and suppliers that furnish items or services to Medicare beneficiaries, as well as Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) and Medicaid State Agencies, have a fair and impartial forum to address disagreements with Medicare coverage and payment determinations made by Medicare contractors, MAOs, or Part D Plan Sponsors (PDPSs), and determinations related to Medicare eligibility and entitlement, Part B late enrollment penalties, and income-related monthly adjustment amounts (IRMAA) made by the Social Security Administration (SSA).
The Medicare claim, organization and coverage determination appeals processes consist of four levels of administrative review, and a fifth level of review with the Federal district courts after administrative remedies under HHS regulations have been exhausted. The first two levels of review are administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and conducted by Medicare contractors for claim appeals, by MAOs and an independent review entity for Part C organization determination appeals, or by PDPSs and an independent review entity for Part D coverage determination appeals. The third level of review is administered by OMHA and conducted by Administrative Law Judges. The fourth level of review is administered by the HHS Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) and conducted by the Medicare Appeals Council. In addition, OMHA and the DAB administer the second and third levels of appeal, respectively, for Medicare eligibility, entitlement, Part B late enrollment penalty, and IRMAA reconsiderations made by SSA; a fourth level of review with the Federal district courts is available after administrative remedies within SSA and HHS have been exhausted.
Sections 1869, 1155, 1876(c)(5)(B), 1852(g)(5), and 1860D-4(h) of the Act are implemented through the regulations at 42 CFR part 405, subparts I and J; part 417, subpart Q; part 422, subpart M; part 423, subparts M and U; and part 478, subpart B. As noted above, OMHA administers the nationwide Administrative Law Judge hearing program in accordance with these statutes and applicable regulations. As part of that effort, OMHA has established the OMHA Case Processing Manual (OCPM). Through the OCPM, the OMHA Chief Administrative Law Judge establishes the day-to-day procedures for carrying out adjudicative functions, in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations and OMHA directives. The OCPM provides direction for processing appeals at the OMHA level of adjudication for Medicare Part A and B claims; Part C organization determinations; Part D coverage determinations; and SSA eligibility and entitlement, Part B late
Section 1871(c) of the Act requires that we publish a list of all Medicare manual instructions, interpretive rules, statements of policy, and guidelines of general applicability not issued as regulations at least every 3 months in the
This quarterly notice provides the specific updates to the OCPM that have occurred in the 3-month period. A hyperlink to the available chapters on the OMHA Web site is provided below. The OMHA Web site contains the most current, up-to-date chapters and revisions to chapters, and will be available earlier than we publish our quarterly notice. We believe the OMHA Web site list provides more timely access to the current OCPM chapters for those involved in the Medicare claim, organization and coverage determination and entitlement appeals processes. We also believe the Web site offers the public a more convenient tool for real time access to current OCPM provisions. In addition, OMHA has a listserv to which the public can subscribe to receive immediate notification of any updates to the OMHA Web site. This listserv avoids the need to check the OMHA Web site, as update notifications are sent to subscribers as they occur. If accessing the OMHA Web site proves to be difficult, the contact person listed above can provide the information.
This notice lists the OCPM chapters and subjects published during the quarter covered by the notice so the reader may determine whether any are of particular interest. We expect this notice to be used in concert with the previously published notice. The OCPM can be accessed at
The OCPM is used by OMHA adjudicators and staff to administer the OMHA program. It offers day-to-day operating instructions, policies, and procedures based on statutes and regulations, and OMHA directives.
The following is a list and description of new and revised OCPM provisions, and the subject matter, that have been released in the covered 3-month period. The full text of current OCPM provisions is available on our Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), announces the publication of Final Safeguards and Research Criteria for transplantation of HIV-positive donor organs in HIV-positive recipients. All such transplants must occur under an institutional review board (IRB)-approved research protocol that is compliant with federal regulations governing human subjects' research. The goal of this research is to increase knowledge about the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of solid organ transplantation (SOT) utilizing HIV-positive donors in HIV-positive recipients.
A summary of public comments on the previously published Draft Safeguards and Research Criteria and HHS' responses follow, as well as the Final Safeguards and Research Criteria.
Dr. Jonah Odim, phone 240-627-3540, Email:
HHS initially published the
HHS received comments from a total of 13 individuals/entities on the Draft Safeguards and Research Criteria. Comments were submitted by transplant centers, Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs), the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS), HIV and transplantation professional societies, and a municipal agency. Overall, these comments were supportive of the HOPE Act and the Draft Safeguards and Research Criteria. Many commenters made useful suggestions that provided clarity and were incorporated into the Final Safeguards and Research Criteria. While the comments will not be addressed individually in this response document, questions, comments, and suggestions about specific aspects of the Draft Safeguards and Research Criteria are addressed by topic below.
The HOPE Act permits HIV-positive to HIV-positive organ transplantation under IRB-approved research protocols conforming to the Final Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act Safeguards and Research Criteria for Transplantation of Organs Infected with HIV, which were developed as directed in the HOPE Act. Patients receiving HIV-positive kidneys from deceased HIV-positive donors in South Africa (Muller, 2015) had survival rates of 84 percent and 74 percent at 1 and 5 years, respectively; however, there is presently no evidence for the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation in North America. The Final Safeguards and Research Criteria are meant to support the acquisition of new clinical knowledge and mechanistic insights about HIV-positive to HIV-positive organ transplantation in the United States. The results of this research will be evaluated by the Secretary of HHS and the OPTN to determine whether and how the OPTN standards for organ transplantation shall be revised to address HIV-positive organ donors.
One commenter raised concerns about the negative impact of adverse outcomes at transplant centers conducting research in HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplants on transplant program-specific reports. This commenter proposed “that transplants performed with HIV-positive donor to HIV-positive recipients are not included in the center specific reports. The risk of transplanting these patients is unknown, and there is no risk adjustment for it on the center specific reports. There will potentially be a strong disincentive for centers to do these patients leading to fewer patients receiving life-saving organ transplants.” Clearly this is an important issue but one that is beyond the authorities delegated to the NIH to enable implementation of the HOPE Act (
Several commenters stated that HIV-infected living donors may be at long-term risk for renal and/or liver disease and therefore their centers would not use HIV-infected living donors. Another commenter felt it was premature to embark on living HIV-positive donors without prior experience with deceased HIV-positive donors and recommended a staged approach. The Hope Act (2013) does not include any language addressing the use of living HIV-infected donors.
The long-term risks of living organ donation to the donor might be greater for those infected with HIV than for those who are not. At the same time, the desire to donate an organ, (
The decision to participate in HIV-positive to HIV-positive clinical research is made freely, based on informed consent in the absence of coercion. The health care team must provide a rigorous, transparent education and informed consent process that describes alternatives, risks, potential benefits, unknowns, and the need for long-term follow-up. These discussions must address how research-related injuries are managed and paid for, and must specifically include the present uncertainties about the outcomes for both HIV-positive living donors and the recipients of HIV-positive organs. Participation of knowledgeable, independent advocates for both the HIV-positive recipient and the HIV-positive donor is required by these Safeguards and Research Criteria.
Some commenters strongly supported the requirement for independent advocates for both HIV-positive recipients and prospective HIV-positive living donors. Others viewed this as unnecessary given the expertise of the principal investigator and study team and current OPTN standards. With
Several commenters from academic institutions, professional societies, and the OPTN indicated that the requirements for physicians' and surgeons' prior experience in HIV-negative to HIV-positive organ transplant were excessive and would result in few centers being able to participate in the research allowed under the HOPE Act. In response to the wide consensus on this issue, we have accepted the specific suggestion of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS). Section 3 of the Final Safeguards and Research Criteria describe collective team experience, rather than individual experience.
Several commenters expressed concerns about the usefulness and relevance of requiring a minimum CD4+ T-cell count/percentage in the donor. They argued that the CD4+ T lymphocyte count will not predict allograft function, and that, among HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplants in South Africa, excellent outcomes were observed in recipients of kidneys from donors with CD4+ T-cell counts well below 200. These commenters urged flexibility and the elimination of this minimum immunologic criterion. In response to these comments, Section 1 of the Final Safeguards and Research Criteria was revised to indicate that, although collection of CD4+ T cell counts and percentages during the donor evaluation is required, no minimum criterion is imposed for organ acceptance. Some commenters preferred excluding any donors with detectable plasma viral load due to the risk of transmitted drug resistance. Unfortunately, it will not be possible in all cases to mitigate the risk of transmitting viral resistance by setting viral load limits and/or assessing antiretroviral resistance profiles in the time available for donor evaluation. It is expected that in many cases, potential donors will have adequate medical history available to inform the transplantation team's assessment and maximally reduce the risk of transmitting resistant virus. For these reasons, the Final Safeguards and Research Criteria do not stipulate a limit on the allowable viral load in a donor. The transplant team should only transplant the organ if the team is confident they can define a post-transplant antiretroviral regimen that will be safe, tolerable, and effective. Concerns about transmitted drug resistance must be included in the recipient informed consent process for the research study. In addition, at the time of an organ offer, the recipient informed consent must address the transplant team's assessment of risk specific to the characteristics of the offered organ.
Several commenters emphasized the importance of a pre-transplant donor organ biopsy. The final updated research criteria include a requirement for performance of a pre-implantation “back-table” biopsy for post-transplantation patient management and future scientific and mechanistic studies. Although there are no further specimen requirements, we strongly encourage the inclusion of serial biospecimens (
Several commenters expressed concerns about data collection, quality, and reporting. The HOPE Act requires the Secretary of HHS to review the results of research conducted under the Act. One purpose of the criteria presented in the Final Safeguards and Research Criteria is to ensure that all investigators conducting research in HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation collect similar data elements. This standardization will facilitate the subsequent review mandated in the HOPE Act.
HHS appreciates the time and effort taken by commenters to respond to the Request for Comments. The comments represented the deliberative efforts of truly dedicated individuals and organizations in transplantation and HIV medicine. All the responses were helpful in revising the draft Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act Safeguards and Research Criteria for Transplantation of Organs Infected with HIV.
The Final Safeguards and Research Criteria for transplantation of HIV-positive (HIV+) donor organs in HIV-positive (HIV+) recipients are as follows:
The HOPE Act requires the HHS Secretary (the Secretary) to develop and publish criteria for research involving transplantation of human immunodeficiency virus-infected donor organs in HIV-positive recipients. A summary of the criteria for conducting clinical research in HIV-positive to HIV-positive organ transplantation is included in the chart below, and the criteria are set forth in six broad categories (Donor Eligibility, Recipient Eligibility, Transplant Hospital Criteria, Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) Responsibilities, Prevention of Inadvertent Transmission of HIV, and Study Design/Required Outcome Measures). These criteria are in addition to current policies and regulations governing organ transplantation and human subjects' research. The goals of these criteria are, first, to ensure that research using organs from HIV-positive donors is conducted under conditions protecting the safety of research participants and the general public; and second, to ensure that the results of this research provide a basis for evaluating the safety of solid organ transplantation (SOT) from HIV-positive donors to HIV-positive recipients.
The HOPE Act research criteria focus on liver and kidney transplantation, where there is substantial experience with HIV-negative to HIV-positive transplantation. The intent is not to exclude the possibility of HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation of other organs; however, transplant organ-specific teams must gain experience
The HOPE Act requires the Secretary and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) to review the results of the scientific research conducted under these criteria to determine whether the results warrant further revisions to the OPTN's standards of quality. Under the HOPE Act, the Secretary may in the future determine that participation in research under such criteria is no longer required for HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplants.
Public Law 113-51, The HOPE Act, requires the HHS Secretary (the Secretary) to, among other things, “develop and publish criteria for conduct of research relating to transplantation of organs from donors infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) into individuals who are infected with HIV before receiving such organs.” (See Public Health Service Act section 377E(a) [codified at 42 U.S.C. 274f-5]). In addition, pursuant to section 377E(c) of the HOPE Act, the Secretary is required, in conjunction with the OPTN, to review the results of that research to determine whether revisions should be made to the standards of quality adopted under section 372(b)(2)(E) of the Public Health Service Act (OPTN standards for the acquisition and transportation of donated organs) and the regulations governing the operation of the OPTN (42 CFR 121.6).
The authority vested in the Secretary under section 377E(a) to develop and publish research criteria was delegated to the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and these research criteria are the subject of this document. They are meant to ensure first, that research using organs from HIV-positive donors is conducted under conditions protecting the safety of research participants and the general public; and second, that the results of this research provide a basis for evaluating the safety of transplantation of organs from HIV-positive donors to HIV-positive recipients.
This document was authored by representatives of the NIH and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Additional input from representatives of other federal agencies, including the Health Resources and Services Administration, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), was solicited. In addition, perspectives and input were solicited from community stakeholders.
The advent of effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the mid-1990s for treatment of individuals infected with HIV transformed a rapidly fatal disease into a well-controlled chronic illness. Currently, the life expectancy of individuals infected with HIV and receiving ART early in the course of their disease approaches that of individuals without HIV infection (Wada, 2013, 2014). In this era of greater longevity, liver failure, end-stage renal disease, and cardiovascular disease have emerged as important causes of morbidity and mortality in patients with HIV infection (Neuhaus, 2010).
Organ transplantation prolongs survival and improves quality of life for individuals with end-stage organ disease (Matas, 2014; Kim, 2014). Until recently, however, organ transplantation was unavailable to those infected with HIV due to concerns that pharmacologic immunosuppression to prevent organ rejection would hasten the progression from HIV infection to AIDS, concerns about disease transmission, and reluctance to allocate organs to a population whose outcome was unpredictable (Blumberg, 2009, 2013a, 2013b; Mgbako, 2013; Taege, 2013). Nevertheless, a few transplant programs accepted HIV-positive patients on their transplant waiting lists and accumulated data showing kidney or liver transplantation could be done safely in these patients (Roland, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c; Blumberg, 2009; Stock, 2010; Yoon, 2011; Terrault, 2012). Subsequently, a prospective, multicenter clinical trial of kidney and liver transplantation in 275 patients demonstrated that, among HIV-positive kidney and liver transplant recipients, patient and graft survival rates were acceptable and within the range of outcomes currently achieved among non-infected transplant recipients. However, the rate of kidney rejection was unexpectedly high, demonstrating that the immune dysregulation resulting from HIV infection, HCV co-infection, and antirejection drugs is complex and incompletely understood. Some of the challenges encountered in that study remain relevant for clinical sites offering organ transplantation to HIV-positive individuals today (
Prior to the passage of the HOPE Act, U.S. law required that all U.S. transplants for HIV-positive recipients utilize organs from HIV-uninfected donors. (See 42 U.S.C. 273(b)(3)(C), 274(b) and 18 U.S.C. 1122, all prior to amendment by the HOPE Act). The potential for increasing the pool of available organ donors for all recipients by allowing the use of organs from donors infected with HIV for transplantation into recipients infected with HIV (hereinafter referred to as “HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation”) is recognized (Boyarsky, 2011, 2015; Mgbako, 2013; Mascolini, 2014; Kucirka, 2015; Richterman, 2015). It is estimated that an additional 500 organ donors per year might be available if HIV-positive individuals were accepted as organ donors for HIV-positive recipients (Boyarsky, 2011). The published experience with HIV-positive to HIV-positive SOT at this time comes from Muller et al from the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Initially, Muller et al (2010) reported 100 percent patient and graft survival in a four-patient pilot study. Subsequently, the same group reported an additional 10 HIV-positive to HIV-positive renal transplants (Muller, 2012). All patients were restarted on ART early postoperatively in the immunosuppressive setting of T-
This document presents criteria for conducting research in HIV-positive to HIV-positive organ transplantation in the United States. The criteria are grouped into six broad categories: Donor Eligibility, Recipient Eligibility, Transplant Hospital Criteria, OPO Responsibilities, Prevention of Inadvertent Transmission of HIV, and Study Design/Required Outcome Measures. These research criteria do not describe all of the necessary components of a research protocol for HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation, such as the specific medication regimens, pre-transplant induction (if any), maintenance immunosuppression after transplantation, or control of HIV infection. These protocol elements and others will be determined by an investigator's specific research questions and the expertise of those conducting the research. Rather, the criteria address the minimum safety and data requirements of clinical research in HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation. As mandated by the HOPE Act, the Secretary, together with the OPTN, is charged with reviewing the results of scientific research conducted under these criteria to determine whether the OPTN's standards of quality should be further modified and whether some HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplants should proceed outside the auspices of research conducted under such criteria.
This document focuses on liver and kidney transplantation, as it is only in liver and kidney transplantation that there is substantial experience with transplantation from HIV-negative donors to HIV-positive recipients (Sawinski, 2015; Locke, 2015a, 2015b; Miro, 2015). The intent is not to exclude the possibility of HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation of other organs such as the heart or lung in the future; however, transplant teams must gain experience with HIV-negative to HIV-positive transplantation of a specific organ before taking on the more complex and less well-defined issues of HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation of that organ. Centers developing research protocols for HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation of organs other than kidney or liver must have a study team with demonstrated experience in HIV-negative to HIV-positive transplants, as noted in Section 3.1(ii), for the organ transplant(s) proposed in the research protocol. Specific criteria for the transplantation of organs other than the liver and kidney have not been provided in this document because no evidence base exists to support such recommendations. The study team developing a research protocol for HIV-positive to HIV-positive non-renal, non-liver transplantation must develop and justify specific criteria for review and approval by their IRB, based on the relevant experiences of the study team and others.
These criteria are in addition to, not in place of, current policies and regulations governing organ transplantation and human subjects' research. Accordingly, to emphasize the specific requirements unique to the investigational transplantation of organs from HIV-positive donors into HIV-positive recipients, the research criteria set forth here do not address related requirements that exist in federal regulations or OPTN bylaws or policies including, but not limited to, obligations imposed on OPTN transplant hospitals and transplant programs concerning informed consent of transplant recipients and living donors, the equitable allocation of organs, and organ offers. The regulations governing the operation of OPTN are codified at 42 CFR part 121 and OPTN policies and bylaws can be found at
Under these research criteria, all HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation must occur under an IRB-approved research protocol and shall comply with any other existing laws, policies, and regulations governing the conduct of human subjects' research (see Public Law 113-51 and,
Although the criteria set forth in this document outline the minimum safety requirements for research involving HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation, it is expected that investigators will develop more specific eligibility criteria based on their individual research questions and protocols. In addition, it is likely, that researchers will wish to collect research specimens (blood, urine, tissue) in addition to those specified in the Research Criteria.
HIV-positive living donors and HIV-positive deceased donors of organs for transplantation into an HIV-positive recipient must fulfill applicable clinical criteria in place for HIV-uninfected organ donors.
There is substantial concern about the consequences of transplanting an organ from an HIV-positive donor to a recipient infected with a strain of HIV that differs from the donor's in terms of its responsiveness to antiretroviral therapy (ART). The likelihood and impact of HIV superinfection in this context are unknown. Adverse consequences could range from transient loss of viral suppression, necessitating a change in antiretroviral regimen to a worst-case scenario in which the new infecting strain of HIV is unresponsive to available antiretroviral treatment and the recipient progresses to AIDS (Redd, 2013). Information relevant to understanding the known or potential extent of antiretroviral resistance in the strain of HIV infecting the organ donor may be incomplete for many reasons:
• There may be inadequate virus in donor specimens for antiretroviral resistance testing;
• If the specimen is adequate, there may not be enough time within the decision-making evaluation window to fully assess antiretroviral resistance before the clinical deterioration of the donor, organ procurement, and implantation;
• The donor's history of antiretroviral treatment may be unknown or incomplete;
• Results from prior antiretroviral resistance testing may be unavailable.
These issues might be especially challenging when considering organ donation from deceased donors whose HIV infection is first identified during donor evaluation. As of 2011, an estimated 1 in 6 U.S. adults living with HIV infection were undiagnosed (Prevention, 2013) and an estimated 16 percent of newly diagnosed, untreated individuals were infected with virus resistant to at least one class of antiretroviral drug (Kim, 2013; Megens, 2013).
It is anticipated that the risk of transmission of resistant HIV strains may be lower from deceased donors with a well-documented history of antiretroviral treatment, undetectable virus at demise, and robust and persistent undetectable viral load for at least 1 year prior to death. However, to impose this as an eligibility criterion would limit the pool of suitable donors and severely limit the ability to study transplantation of HIV-positive organs under the HOPE Act. In addition, it will not be possible in all cases to obtain viral loads and/or antiretroviral resistance profiles in the time available for donor evaluation. Transplant teams evaluating a donor must review all available donor and recipient information and be able to propose an antiretroviral regimen that will be equally or more safe, tolerable, and effective for the recipient after transplantation as the regimen in place in the recipient before transplantation. For instance, a donor who only achieves viral suppression with a regimen known to be intolerable to the recipient must not be accepted. If there is doubt about the ability to suppress viral replication after transplantation, the transplant must not move forward.
Donors co-infected with hepatitis are not excluded from HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplant; however, careful consideration must be given when evaluating a donor co-infected with HBV and/or HCV (Terrault, 2012; Miro, 2012; Moreno, 2012; Sherman, 2014; Chen, 2014). Although HCV therapeutic strategies are rapidly evolving (Liang, 2013), it is possible that mixed genotype HCV infections may influence post-transplant treatment of HCV in the recipient. Prior antiretroviral treatment of the donor and/or recipient with agents active against HBV (
In the case of a living HIV-positive organ donor, the risk of future end-stage liver or kidney failure in the donor must be carefully assessed as it is in other at-risk populations currently eligible to donate an organ. For example, kidney disease in HIV-positive patients has been associated with the apolipoprotein 1 (APOL1) coding variants that confer a very high risk of susceptibility and are almost exclusively found in patients of African descent (Freedman, 2013; Genovese, 2010). Living donation of a kidney from a donor having such a variant may be associated with an unacceptable risk of subsequent kidney disease to both the donor and the recipient (Freedman, 2015; Reeves-Daniel, 2011; Parsa, 2013; Riella, 2015).
The consent process for an HIV-positive living organ donor must include and document provision to the donor of information regarding: (1) The possibility that the loss of organ function resulting from donation could preclude the use of certain antiretroviral drugs in the future; (2) the risk of kidney or liver failure in the future; (3) the possibility of transmission of occult opportunistic infections to the recipient; and (4) the absence of U.S. experience in HIV-positive to HIV-positive organ transplantation, and thus the unpredictable nature of donor and recipient outcomes (Mgbako, 2013).
HIV-positive transplant candidates who are listed for a transplant in the context of a research study of HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation must have the same opportunity as other transplant candidates to receive an organ from an HIV-negative donor, should one become available for them.
The HIV-specific donor eligibility criteria for deceased donors and for living donors are listed (also refer to Table 1). Co-infection with HBV and/or HCV is not an exclusion criterion, although research that includes co-infected donors must address any additional eligibility criteria within their research protocol.
When evaluating HIV-positive deceased donors, it is understood that limited medical history may be available and/or known at the time of the donor evaluation. The OPO must make reasonable efforts to obtain prior medical history so that a transplant center team may best determine the suitability of the potential donor based on the information available. A complete history of antiretroviral regimens and a history of viral load tests and resistance testing are especially valuable for evaluating the likelihood of donor HIV resistance to antiretroviral regimens. A history of OIs or cancers is also of high importance, due to the increased risk for both attributable to HIV, and the additional difficulty of treating some infections and neoplasms in a post-transplant setting. It is possible that deceased donors with lower CD4+ T-cell counts may pose an increased risk of harboring transmissible diseases (
i. Documented HIV infection using an FDA-licensed, approved, or cleared test device(s).
ii. No evidence of invasive opportunistic complications of HIV infection.
iii. Pre-implant donor organ biopsy to be stored, at a minimum, for the duration of the study (or at least 5 years); additional specimens may be obtained to support specific research goals.
i. The study team must describe the anticipated post-transplant antiretroviral regimen(s) to be prescribed for the recipient and justify their conclusion that the proposed regimen will be safe, tolerable, and effective.
i. Documented HIV infection using an FDA-licensed, approved, or cleared test device.
ii. Well-controlled HIV infection, as evidenced by:
a. CD4+ T-cell count ≥500/µL for the 6-month period preceding donation.
b. Fewer than 50 copies/mL of HIV-1 RNA detectable by ultrasensitive or real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay.
iii. A complete history of ART regimens and ART resistance.
iv. The study team must be able to predict a safe, tolerable, and effective regimen to be prescribed for the recipient based on the donor's current ART regimen as well as the donor's history of ART resistance.
v. No evidence of invasive opportunistic complications of HIV infection.
vi. A liver biopsy (in liver donors) or a kidney biopsy (in kidney donors) showing no evidence of a disease process that would put the donor at increased risk of progressing to end-stage organ failure after donation, or that would present a risk of poor graft function to the recipient.
A key consideration when evaluating potential HIV-positive transplant candidates is the ability to suppress HIV viral load post-transplant. This includes a thorough assessment by the transplant team of the candidate recipient's prescribed antiretroviral medications, HIV RNA levels while on medications, adherence to HIV treatment, and any available HIV resistance testing; a similar evaluation of the donor must also be carried out. A transplant should only take place if, after evaluating both recipient and donor, the team is confident they can define a post-transplant antiretroviral regimen that will be safe, tolerable, and effective. If there is any doubt on the part of the transplant team about the ability to suppress viral replication post-transplant, the transplant should not move forward. Concerns about transmitted drug resistance must be included in the recipient informed consent process for the research study. At the time of an organ offer, the recipient informed consent must address the transplant team's assessment of risk specific to the organ they are being offered.
The following HIV-specific criteria must be met when screening for an HIV-positive to HIV-positive organ transplant (also refer to Table 1):
i. CD4+ T-cell count ≥200/µL (kidney) and ≥100/µL (liver) within 16 weeks prior to transplant; any patient with history of OI must have a CD4 positive T-cell count ≥200/uL.
ii. HIV RNA less than 50 copies/mL and on a stable antiretroviral regimen.*
iii. No evidence of active opportunistic complications of HIV infection.
iv. No history of primary CNS lymphoma or progressive PML.
v. Concurrence by the study team that, based on medical history and ART, viral suppression can be achieved in the recipient post-transplant.
*Patients who are unable to tolerate ART due to organ failure or who have only recently started ART may have detectable viral load and still be considered eligible if the study team is confident there will be a safe, tolerable, and effective antiretroviral regimen for the patient once organ function is restored after transplantation.
Expertise in the management of individuals with HIV infection is essential for this research. A transplant hospital participating in HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation must include experts in the field of transplantation as well as experts in the management of HIV infection working collaboratively as a part of a study team.
i. An established program for the care of individuals infected with HIV.
ii. In order for a transplant hospital to initiate HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation, there must be a study team consisting of (at a minimum) a transplant surgeon, a transplant physician, and an HIV physician. The transplant physician and HIV physician collectively must have experience with at least 5 HIV-negative to HIV-positive transplants with the designated organ(s) over the last 4 years. This constitutes the minimal experience necessary, and the IRB must evaluate key personnel (
iii. Defined SOPs and training for the hospital personnel involved in procurement and/or implantation regarding the following issues:
iv. Transplant hospitals with an IRB-approved research protocol in HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation
v. Transplant hospitals with an IRB-approved research protocol in HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation with HIV-positive candidates on the wait list willing to accept an HIV-positive organ must specify any additional acceptance criteria to the OPO.
vi. The transplant hospital must verify the HIV status of both the donor and the recipient.
vii. Defined SOPs and training regarding an institutional biohazard plan, which outlines the measures taken to prevent and manage inadvertent exposure and/or transmission of HIV.
viii. Defined policies and SOPs for governing the necessary knowledge, experience, skills, and training for independent advocates.
A transplant program conducting research in HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation under these research criteria must provide each HIV-positive living donor and recipient with an independent advocate.
In the setting of a living donor transplant, there must be two independent advocates, one for the donor and another for the recipient. Each advocate must be independent of the research team and must have knowledge and experience with both HIV infection and organ transplantation.
At a minimum, transplant hospitals conducting research in HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation shall develop policies and procedures addressing the role, knowledge, and experience of independent advocates in the setting of HIV infection, transplantation, medical ethics, informed consent, and the potential impact of external pressure on the HIV-positive recipient's decision, and HIV-positive living donor's decision (if applicable) about whether to enter the HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplant research study.
Transplant programs performing HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplants must designate and provide each HIV-positive recipient and prospective HIV-positive recipient with an independent advocate who is responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of the HIV-positive recipient (or prospective recipient). The independent advocate for the HIV-positive recipient must:
i. Promote and protect the interests of the HIV-positive recipient (including with respect to having access to a suitable HIV-negative organ if it becomes available) and take steps to ensure that the HIV-positive recipient's decision is informed and free from coercion.
ii. Review whether the potential HIV-positive recipient has received information regarding the results of SOT in general and transplantation in HIV-positive recipients in particular and the unknown risks associated with HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplant.
iii. Demonstrate knowledge of HIV infection and transplantation.
Transplant programs performing HIV-positive donor transplantations must designate and provide each living HIV-positive donor and living prospective HIV-positive donor with an independent advocate who is responsible for promoting and protecting the rights and interests of the HIV-positive donor (or prospective donor). More specifically, the independent advocate for the HIV-positive living donor must:
i. Promote and protect the interests of the HIV-positive donor (including with respect to having ample opportunity to withdraw consent from donation) and take steps to ensure that the HIV-positive donor's decision is informed and free from external pressure.
ii. Review whether the potential HIV-positive donor has received information regarding (a) risks of organ donation in general, as well as the additional potential risks that are the specific to the HIV-positive donor, including accelerated organ failure, and limitations of future use of specific antiretroviral agents; and (b) the unknown outcome of HIV-positive to HIV-positive organ transplantation.
iii. Demonstrate knowledge of HIV infection and transplantation.
Clinical research in HIV-positive to HIV-positive organ transplantation requires a partnership between OPOs and transplant programs. OPOs participating in the evaluation and allocation of HIV-positive organs to centers conducting research in HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation must adhere to the following criteria:
i. Develop SOPs and staff training procedures to effectively work with the family and other sources of medical history for HIV-positive donors in assessing medical and behavioral risks; HIV clinic and pharmacy medical record abstraction; obtaining research consent from next of kin of HIV-positive donors; performing physical examination of HIV-positive donors; collecting blood, tissue, and other biospecimens (
ii. Conduct training in obtaining relevant and pertinent HIV-positive history, duration of HIV infection, opportunistic illnesses and their therapy, risk factors for HIV, CD4+ T-cell counts (lows and highs), HIV resistance, ART medication history use and response, history of ART resistance, present ART, HIV viral loads, and HIV genotype and tropism, when known.
iii. Develop a biohazard plan to prevent and manage exposure to or transmission of HIV.
These criteria are in addition to, not in place of, current Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) policies and bylaws, state or local laws, and federal regulations governing organ transplantation and research that pertains to OPOs.
Although the use of HIV-positive organs may help alleviate transplant shortages and reduce patient waiting list times, there also are patient safety concerns to consider. Prevention or management of inadvertent transmission of HIV or exposure of an HIV-negative recipient to organs or tissues from an HIV-positive donor due to identification error is paramount (Ison, 2009, 2011a, 2011b). The transplant community, with regulatory oversight at multiple levels, has been able to achieve a high level of safety through routine procedures and clinical practice. The precautions taken with ABO compatible donor-recipient pairs and HCV-infected donor organs in HCV-infected recipients (Morales, 2010; Kucirka, 2010; Mandal, 2000; Tector, 2006) are existing models. However, vulnerabilities still exist, and mishaps still occur. For instance, the risks of error during manual transcription of information are well documented.
Each transplant hospital shall have an institutional biohazard plan for handling of HIV-positive organs—to include, for example, organ quarantine measures, electronic information capture on infectious disease testing results, communication protocols between OPOs and transplant hospitals—that is designed to prevent and/or manage inadvertent transmission of or exposure to HIV.
Tissues (
There is a wide range of clinical and immunologic questions that might be addressed in the context of research in HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation. These include, for example, questions related to HIV superinfection; incidence and severity of OIs (including transmission of occult OIs from donor to recipient); immunologic mechanisms contributing to the increased rate of kidney rejection observed in HIV-positive recipients; quality of life for recipients of HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation; outcomes of living HIV-positive donors; and a host of others. The questions will be determined by the investigators who design research protocols for studying HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation. However, to ensure that all studies of HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation can contribute to evaluation of the safety of the procedure, the following key donor and recipient characteristics and outcome measures must be incorporated into the design of all clinical trials of HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the NHLBI Institutional Training Mechanism Review Committee, December 11, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to December 11, 2015, 5:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended because the meeting will now start at 10 a.m. and will be conducted as a teleconference. The meeting is closed to the public.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of January 20, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of January 6, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
I. Watershed-based studies:
II. Non-watershed-based studies:
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), DHS.
60-day Renewal 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 1652-0032, abstracted below, that we will submit to the OMB for renewal in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves using a questionnaire to collect medical information from candidates for the job of Transportation Security Officer (TSO) to ensure applicants are qualified to perform TSO duties pursuant to 49 U.S.C 44935. In certain cases, TSO candidates' health care providers may be asked to complete supplemental forms.
Send your comments by January 25, 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.
TSA currently collects relevant medical information from TSO candidates who successfully complete the steps in the hiring process leading up to the medical portion. This information is used to assess whether the candidates meet the medical qualification standards the agency has established pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44935. TSA collects this information through a medical questionnaire completed by TSO candidates and, in certain cases, supplemental forms completed by TSO candidates' health care providers. The medical questionnaire and supplemental forms are used to evaluate a candidate's physical and medical qualifications to be a TSO, including visual and aural acuity, and physical coordination and motor skills.
Candidates who disclose certain medical conditions on the medical questionnaire may be asked to have their health care provider complete one or more supplemental forms. These supplemental forms pertain to particular body systems and medical conditions, including cardiac, orthopedic, endocrine, and vital signs; the type of supplemental form(s) completed by a candidate's health care provider depend(s) on the condition(s) revealed during a candidate's initial medical evaluation and disclosed on the initial medical questionnaire. For example, a candidate who discloses a previous back injury may be asked to have his/her health care provider complete a supplemental form to enable the agency to better evaluate whether the candidate can perform the TSO job safely and efficiently without substantial risk of accident or injury to himself/herself or others.
Historical data indicates that on average 17,480 candidates for TSO positions annually complete initial medical exams at the 3,000 health care provider clinics/facilities nationwide provided by TSA, at no cost to the candidates. The initial medical exam form takes approximately 45 minutes (0.75 hours) for the candidates to complete, resulting in an estimated burden of 13,110 hours (17,480 × 0.75 hours). Also, the initial exam form takes an estimated 5 minutes (0.083 hours) for the health care providers to complete, resulting in an estimated burden of 1,451 hours (17,480 × 0.083 hours). The estimated total burden time for the completion of the initial medical exam form is 14,561 annual hours (13,110 hours + 1,451 hours). The estimated total respondents for the completion of the initial examination is 20,480.
Of these 17,480 initial medical exams, approximately 55 percent of those reaching the medical evaluation will be requested to complete one additional supplemental evaluation form. This yields an additional estimated 9,614 candidates (55% × 17,480) required to complete one further evaluation (FE) form. It is estimated that completing the FE form will take the candidates 5 minutes (0.083 hours), resulting in an estimated 798 hours (9,614 × 0.083 hours). The FE form will also need to be completed by the candidates' health care providers. It is estimated that it will take 9,614 health care providers an estimated 5 minutes (0.083 hours) to review and complete, resulting in an estimated burden of 798 hours (9,614 × 0.083 hours). Therefore, to complete the first FE form, the estimated total burden is 1,596 annual hours (798 hours + 798 hours) and the estimated total respondents are 19,228 (9,614 candidates + 9,614 health care providers).
In addition, of the 9,614 applicants required to complete a FE form, TSA estimates that 20 percent of them will need to complete a second FE form. Thus, 1,923 candidates (20% × 9,614) will complete a second FE form. It is estimated that completing a second FE form will take the candidate 5 minutes (0.083 hours), resulting in a total of 160 hours (1,923 × 0.083 hours). The second FE form will also need to be completed by the candidates' health care providers. It is estimated that it will take 1,923 health care providers 5 minutes (0.083 hours) to complete the second FE form, resulting in an estimated burden of 160 hours (1,923 × 0.083 hours). Therefore, the estimated total hour burden for completing the second FE forms is 320 annual hours (160 hours + 160 hours) and the estimated total respondents are 3,846 (1,923 TSO candidates + 1,923 health care providers).
Therefore, the total estimated annual number of respondents for this collection will be 58,032 (29,016 TSO candidates (17,480 initial exam forms + 9,614 first FE exam forms + 1,922 second FE exam forms) plus 14,536 health care providers (3,000 initial exam forms + 9,614 first FE exam forms + 1,922 second FE exam forms)). The total estimated annual hour burden for completing the initial medical exam and the FE forms will be 16,477 hours (14,561 initial exam forms + 1,596 first FE forms + 320 second FE forms).
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 (2501-0017) and (2535-0018) should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Anna Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
The use of the Third-Party Documentation Facsimile Transmittal Form allows the Department to collect the same information electronically as we would for a paper-based application. It also produces an electronic version of the document that will be matched with the electronic application submitted through grants.gov to HUD.
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given below by
Documents and other information submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (Attn: James Gruhala, Permit Coordinator).
James Gruhala, 10(a)(1)(A) Permit Coordinator, telephone 404-679-7097; facsimile 404-679-7081.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of the following methods. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, mark, and release) 32 species of endangered and threatened mussels and the Tulotoma snail (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, release) the federally endangered American burying beetle (
The applicant requests renewal and amendment of the permit to continue previously permitted take (capture, release and salvage shells) fat pocketbook (
The applicant requests an amendment to their current permit to add authorization to remove and reduce to possession (collect) seeds of Carter's mustard (
The applicant requests a permit to take (enter hibernacula or maternity roost caves; capture with mist-nets, harp traps, or by hand; collect biometric data, tissue, and/or hair; band; and radio-tag) Virginia big-eared bat (
The applicant requests a permit to take (enter hibernacula; salvage; capture with mist-nets or harp traps; handle; measure; identify; collect hair and fecal samples; apply fungal lift tape; swab; wing-punch; band; radio-tag; and light-tag Indiana bat (
The applicant requests a permit to take (enter hibernacula; salvage; capture with mist-nets or harp traps; handle; measure; identify; collect hair and fecal samples; apply fungal lift tape; swab; wing-punch; band; radio-tag; and light-tag Indiana bat (
The applicant requests a permit to take (enter hibernacula or maternity roost caves; capture with mist-nets and harp traps; collect fur, fecal, and tissue samples; swab; band; and radio-tag) Virginia big-eared bat (
The applicant requests amendment of their current permit to add authorization to take (enter hibernacula or maternity roost caves; capture with mist-nets and harp traps; wing-punch; band; and radio-tag) Virginia big-eared bat (
The applicant requests a permit to take (mist-net, harp trap, handle, band, and radio tag) Indiana bat (
The applicant requests to amend their current permit to take (collect, handle, maintain in captivity, propagate, release, and translocate) individuals from 10 federally listed mussel species for the purpose of restoring and augmenting wild populations in the state of North Carolina.
The applicant requests to amend their current permit to take (capture, hold, propagate in captivity, collect body parts or tissues, attach markers and release) Schaus swallowtail butterfly (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, identify, release) Nashville crayfish (
The applicant requests a permit to take (mist-net, harp trap, handle, wing-punch, band, and radio tag) Indiana bat (
The applicant requests to amend their current permit to take (capture, identify, release) an additional eighteen species of federally listed fish, nineteen species of federally listed mussels, the Nashville crayfish (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment/information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of an incidental take permit (ITP) and a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Verano Land Investment, LLC (applicant) requests ITP TE67461B-0 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The applicant anticipates taking about 4 acres of feeding, breeding, and sheltering habitat used by the sand skink (
We must receive your written comments on the ITP application and HCP on or before December 28, 2015.
See the
Mr. Alfredo Begazo, South Florida Ecological Services Office (see
If you wish to comment on the ITP application or HCP, you may submit comments by any one of the following methods:
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comments that your personal identifying information be withheld from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We received an application from the applicant for an incidental take permit, along with a proposed habitat conservation plan. The applicant requests an ITP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant proposes to minimize impacts to skinks by preserving a total of 8 acres of skink-occupied habitat off site. The Service listed the skinks as threatened in 1987 (November 6, 1987; 52 FR 20715), effective December 7, 1987.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's project, including the mitigation measures, will individually and cumulatively have a minor or negligible effect on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, issuance of the ITP is a “low-effect” action and qualifies as a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). We base our preliminary determination that issuance of the ITP qualifies as a low-effect action on the following three criteria: (1) Implementation of the project would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) Implementation of the project would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) Impacts of the project, considered together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects, would not result, over time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources that would be considered significant. This preliminary determination may be revised based on our review of public comments that we receive in response to this notice.
The Service will evaluate the HCP and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. The Service will also evaluate whether issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. The results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, will be used in the final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP. If it is determined that the requirements of the Act are met, the ITP will be issued.
We provide this notice under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of submission to OMB.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for renewal for the collection of information for the Tribal Colleges and Universities Application for Grants, authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0018, and the Tribal Colleges and Universities Annual Report Form, authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0105. Both of these information collections expire November 30, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 28, 2015.
You may submit comments on the information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, by facsimile to (202) 395-5806 or you may send an email to:
Juanita Mendoza, (202) 208-3559. You may review the information collection requests online at
Each Tribally-controlled college or university requesting financial assistance under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-471), which provides grants to Tribally Controlled Colleges or Universities for the purpose of ensuring continued and expanded educational opportunities for Indian students. Similarly, each Tribally Controlled College or University that receives financial assistance under the Act is required by Public Law 95-471 Sec.107(c)(1) and 25 CFR 41 to provide a report on the use of funds received.
The Bureau of Indian Education requests your comments on these collections concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit public nominations for three positions on the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board (Board). The Board provides advice concerning the management, protection, and control of wild free-roaming horses and burros on public lands administered by the Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Department of Agriculture through the U.S. Forest Service. The BLM will accept public nominations for 30 days after the publication of this Notice.
Nominations must be post marked or submitted to the address listed below no later than December 28, 2015.
All mail sent via the U.S. Postal Service should be sent as follows: Division of Wild Horses and Burros, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW., Room 2134 LM, Attention: Quiana Davis, WO-260, Washington, DC 20240. All mail and packages that are sent via FedEx or UPS should be addressed as follows: Division of Wild Horses and Burros, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street SE., Room 2134 LM, Attention: Sarah Bohl, Washington, DC 20003. You may also send a fax to Sarah Bohl at 202-912-7182, or email her at
Crystal Cowan, Wild Horse and Burro Program Specialist, 202-912-7263. 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. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
Members of the Board serve without compensation. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business, Board and subcommittee members engaged in Board or subcommittee business, approved by the Designated Federal Official (DFO), may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in government service under Section 5703 of Title 5 of the United States Code. Nominations for a term of 3 years are needed to represent the following categories of interest:
The Board will meet one to four times annually. The DFO may call additional meetings in connection with special needs for advice. Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more persons to serve on the Board. Nominations will not be accepted without a complete resume. The following information must accompany all nominations for the individual to be considered for a position:
1. The position(s) for which the individual wishes to be considered;
2. The individual's first, middle, and last name;
3. Business address and phone number;
4. Home address and phone number;
5. Email address;
6. Present occupation/title and employer;
7. Education: (colleges, degrees, major field(s) of study);
8. Career Highlights: Significant related experience, civic and professional activities, elected offices (include prior advisory committee experience or career achievements related to the interest to be represented). Attach additional pages, if necessary;
9. Qualifications: Education, training, and experience that qualify you to serve on the Board;
10. Experience or knowledge of wild horse and burro management;
11. Experience or knowledge of horses or burros (equine health, training, and management);
12. Experience in working with disparate groups to achieve collaborative solutions (
13. Identification of any BLM permits, leases, or licenses held by the individual or his or her employer;
14. Indication of whether the individual is a federally registered lobbyist; and
15. Explanation of interest in serving on the Board.
At least one letter of reference sent from special interests or organizations the individual may represent, including, but not limited to, business associates, friends, co-workers, local, State, and/or Federal government representatives, or members of Congress should be included along with any other information that is relevant to the individual's qualifications.
As appropriate, certain Board members may be appointed as special government employees. Special government employees serve on the Board without compensation, and are subject to financial disclosure requirements in the Ethics in Government Act and 5 CFR 2634. Nominations are to be sent to the address listed under
43 CFR 1784.4-1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to request public nominations for six members to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Advisory Committee (MAC). The MAC provides advice and recommendations to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on science issues and the achievement of Monument Management Plan objectives. The Monument will receive public nominations for 30 days from the date this notice is posted.
A completed nomination form and accompanying nomination/recommendation letters must be received at the address listed below no later than December 28, 2015.
Nominations and completed applications should be sent to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Headquarters Office, 669 South Highway 89A, Kanab, UT 84741.
Larry Crutchfield, Public Affairs Officer, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, 669 South Highway 89A, Kanab, UT 84741; phone (435) 644-1209, or email:
The Secretary of the Interior established the Monument pursuant to section 309 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43U.S.C. 1739) and in conformity with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2). The 15 appointed members of the MAC perform several primary tasks: (1) Review evaluation reports produced by the Management Science Team and make recommendations on protocols and projects to meet overall objectives; (2) Review appropriate research proposals and make recommendations on project necessity and validity; (3) Make recommendations regarding allocation of research funds through review of research and project proposals as well as needs identified through the evaluation process above; and (4) Could be consulted on issues such as protocols for specific projects.
The Secretary appoints persons to the Committee who are representatives of the various major citizen interests pertaining to land use planning and management of the lands under BLM management in the Monument.
Each MAC member will be a person who, as a result of training and experience, has knowledge or special expertise which qualifies him or her to provide advice from among the categories of interest listed below. As appropriate, certain committee members may be appointed as Special Government Employees. Special Government Employees serve on the Committee without compensation, and are subject to financial disclosure requirements in the Ethics in Government Act and 5 CFR 2634.
Any individual or organization may nominate one or more persons to serve on the MAC. Individuals may also nominate themselves. Nomination forms may be obtained from the Monument Headquarters Office (address listed above). To make a nomination, submit a letter of nomination, a completed nomination form, letters of reference from the represented interests or organizations associated with the interest represented by the candidate, and any other information that speaks to the candidate's qualifications. The six open positions are as follows: One member with expertise in archaeology; one member with expertise in botany; one member with expertise in geology; one member to represent tribal interests in the Monument; an elected official from Garfield County; and an elected official from Kane County.
The specific category the nominee would be representing should be identified in the letter of nomination and in the nomination form. The BLM-Utah State Director and Monument Manager will review the nomination forms and letters of reference. The State Director shall confer with the governor of the State of Utah on potential nominations. The BLM-Utah State Director will then forward recommended nominations to the Secretary of the Interior who has responsibility for making the appointments.
Members will serve without monetary compensation, but will be reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses at current rates for government employees. The committee will meet at least twice a year. Additional meetings may be called by the Designated Federal Officer.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of correction.
This action corrects the first date in a table that published on November 13, 2015 (80 FR 70252). The table announces the dates, times, and locations of public meetings.
On page 70252, column 1 of the table, line 2, which reads “Dec. 14, 2051,” is hereby corrected to read “Dec. 14, 2015.”
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to open the request for public nominations for the Elected Official representative on the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC). The selected individual would complete the remaining two years of the current three-year term that concludes on May 6, 2017. The RAC provides advice and recommendations to the BLM on land use planning and management of the National System of Public Lands within its geographic area, which approximately coincides with the Southern Nevada Basin and Range, and Sonoran Basin and Range major land resource area in Esmeralda, Nye, Lincoln, and Clark Counties, in Nevada. The BLM will accept public nominations for 30 days after the publication of this notice.
All nominations must be received no later than December 28, 2015.
See
Chris Hanefeld, Ely District Office, BLM, 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301; 775-289-1842 or
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of lands administered by the BLM. Section 309 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1739) directs the Secretary to establish 10- to 15-member citizen-based advisory councils that are consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As required by FACA, RAC membership must be balanced and representative of the various interests concerned with the management of the public lands. The rules governing RACs are found at 43 CFR subpart 1784.
Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Nominees must be residents of the State in which the RAC has jurisdiction. The BLM will evaluate nominees based on their education, training, experience, and knowledge of the geographical area of the RAC. Nominees should demonstrate a commitment to collaborative resource decision-making. The Obama Administration prohibits individuals who are currently federally registered lobbyists from being appointed or re-appointed to FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils.
The following must accompany all nominations for the RAC:
Simultaneous with this notice, the BLM will issue a press release providing additional information for submitting nominations. Nominations and completed applications should be sent to Chris Hanefeld, Ely District Office, BLM, 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301, 775-289-1842.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is seeking nominations for the Central California District Resource Advisory Council (RAC). The RAC advises BLM officials from the Hollister, Mother Lode, Bakersfield, Ukiah and Bishop field offices. The Central California District will receive public nominations for 30 days from the date this notice is published.
A completed nomination form and accompanying nomination/recommendation letters must be received at the address listed below no later than December 28, 2015.
Completed applications should be sent to the Bureau of Land Management, 5152 Hillsdale Circle, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762; attn: David Christy, email
David Christy, Public Affairs Officer, Central California District, 5152 Hillsdale Circle, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762, phone (916) 941-3146, or email:
The Secretary of the Interior established the Central California RAC pursuant to section 309 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1739) and in conformity with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2). The 12-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and
Each RAC member will be a person who, as a result of training and experience, has knowledge or special expertise which qualifies him or her to provide advice from among the categories of interest listed below. As appropriate, certain committee members may be appointed as Special Government Employees. Special Government Employees serve on the committee without compensation, and are subject to financial disclosure requirements in the Ethics in Government Act and 5 CFR part 2634.
This notice, published pursuant to 43 CFR 1784.4-1, solicits public nominations to fill four positions on the committee. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more persons to serve on the RAC. Individuals may nominate themselves for RAC membership.
Nomination forms may be obtained from the Central California District Office, address listed above. Nominations packages must include a letter of nomination, a completed nomination form, letters of reference from the represented interest groups or organizations associated with the interests represented by the candidate, and any other information that speaks to the candidate's qualifications.
The four open member positions are:
Category Two (one position)—Representatives of nationally or regionally recognized environmental organizations, archaeological and historical organizations, dispersed recreation activities, and wild horse and burro organizations.
Category Three (three positions)—Representatives of State, county, or local elected office; representatives and employees of a State agency responsible for the management of natural resources; representatives of Indian tribes within or adjacent to the area for which the RAC is organized; representatives and employees of academic institutions who are involved in natural sciences; and the public-at-large.
The specific category the nominee would represent should be identified in the letter of nomination and in the nomination form. The BLM-California State Director and District Manager will review the nomination forms and letters of reference. The State Director shall confer with the Governor of the State of California on potential nominations, then will forward recommended nominations to the Secretary of the Interior, who has responsibility for making the appointments.
Members will serve without monetary compensation, but will be reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses at current U.S. General Services Administration rates. The Committee will meet at least twice a year. Additional meetings may be called by the Designated Federal Officer.
The Obama Administration prohibits individuals who are currently federally registered lobbyists to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees or councils.
43 CFR 1784.4-1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Public Meeting Postponement.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a notice in the
Joe Meyer, BLM Northwest Colorado District Manager, 2815 H Road, CO 81506, 970-244-3000; or Chris Joyner, Public Affairs Specialist, 2815 H Road, CO 81506, 970-244-3000. 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, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The RAC meets in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) California Desert District, Moreno Valley, California, intends to prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendment with an associated Environmental Assessment (EA) for both the plan amendment and the Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project in the California Desert Conservation Area. By this notice the BLM is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues for both proposals.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project plan amendment/EA. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until December 28, 2015. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers and the BLM Web site at:
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the California Desert District, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553.
Greg Miller, Deputy District Manager—Resources, telephone (951) 697-5200; address, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553; email,
This document provides notice that the BLM California Desert District Office intends to prepare a plan amendment/EA for the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, announces the beginning of the scoping process, and seeks public input on issues related to the plan amendment and proposed right-of-way, as well as the planning criteria. The planning area is located in Riverside County, California, and encompasses approximately 676 acres of public land. Eagle Crest Energy Company has applied to the BLM for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to construct, operate, maintain and decommission a 500 kilovolt (kV) generation interconnect (gen-tie) line and a water pipeline. The gen-tie line would transmit electricity generated by Eagle Crest's pumped storage facility to the Southern California Edison's Red Bluff sub-station located on BLM lands in Riverside County, California. The water line would draw water from an area below private land, traverse BLM land, and fill the reservoirs at the pumped storage facility. The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the EA, including alternatives for both the planning effort and the ROW grant, and guide the planning process. The preliminary issues of visual resources and hydrology for the plan amendment/ROW area have been identified by BLM personnel; Federal, State, and local agencies; and other stakeholders. Preliminary planning criteria include: (a) The plan will be completed in compliance with FLPMA, NEPA, and all other relevant Federal laws, Executive orders, and management policies of the BLM; (b) Existing planning decisions will remain unchanged unless specifically proposed to be changed; (c) The plan amendment will recognize valid existing rights; and (d) Native American tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with policy and tribal concerns will be given due consideration. The planning process will include the consideration of any impacts on Indian trust assets.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed actions that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the EA as a cooperating agency.
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. The BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in the plan, and will place them into one of three categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation in the Draft RMP amendment/EA as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the plan, and/or pertain to the proposed ROWs. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment, and make a decision regarding the ROW grant, in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Archaeology, wildlife, lands and realty, hydrology, sociology and economics.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to reopen the request for public nominations for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coeur d'Alene Resource Advisory Committee (RAC), which has member terms expiring this year. The RAC provides advice and recommendations to the BLM on land use planning and management of the National System of Public Lands within the respective geographic area. The BLM will accept public nominations for 30 days after the publication of this notice.
All nominations must be received no later than December 28, 2015.
Nominations for the Coeur d'Alene RAC should be sent to Coeur d'Alene RAC, Attn. Suzanne Endsley, BLM Coeur d'Alene District Office, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83835, (208) 769-5004.
Suzanne Endsley, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Coeur d'Alene District Public Affairs Officer, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815, 208-769-5004.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of lands administered by the BLM. Section 309 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1739) directs the Secretary to establish 10- to 15-member citizen-based advisory councils that are consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As required by FACA, Resource Advisory Council (RAC) membership must be balanced and representative of the various interests concerned with the management of the public lands. The rules governing RACs are found at 43 CFR 1784 and include the following three membership categories:
Those who have already submitted a nomination in response to the first or second call for nominations (published in the
The following must accompany all nominations for the RAC:
Simultaneous with this notice, the BLM Idaho State Office will issue news releases providing additional information for submitting nominations, with specifics about the number and categories of member positions available for the RAC. If you have already submitted your RAC nomination materials for 2015, you will not need to resubmit.
43 CFR 1784.4-1
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment.
BOEM is announcing its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for potential commercial wind leasing and site assessment activities on the Atlantic OCS offshore South Carolina. The EA will address environmental and socioeconomic effects related to the proposed action, issuance of commercial wind energy leases, and approval of site assessment activities on those leases. This notice serves to announce the beginning of the formal scoping process. The scope of the EA is the range of issues, alternatives, impacts, and mitigation measures to be considered. Scoping will help identify reasonable alternatives and focus the analysis in the EA on potentially significant issues and eliminate from detailed consideration those issues that are insignificant, irrelevant, or that have not changed from previous analyses. BOEM will also use the scoping process to seek public comment and input under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Additional information on the proposed action may be found at
Comments should be submitted no later than January 25, 2016.
Michelle Morin, BOEM Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road, VAM-OREP, Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 787-1722, or
The proposed action that will be the subject of the EA is the issuance of wind energy leases within all or some of the Call Areas offshore South Carolina and the approval of site assessment activities (including the installation and operation of a meteorological tower and/or buoys) on those leases. BOEM will also consider the environmental impacts associated with the site characterization activities (including geophysical, geotechnical, archaeological, and biological surveys) that it anticipates lessees might eventually undertake to fulfill the information requirements for Site Assessment Plans and Construction and Operations Plans found at 30 CFR 585.610 and 585.626 respectively.
A detailed description of the Call Areas can be found in the
BOEM will use the NEPA process to inform the Section 106 consultation process of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 300101
BOEM invites other Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments to consider becoming cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EA. We invite qualified government entities to inquire about cooperating agency status. You may contact OREP (listed above).
BOEM will hold public scoping meetings in South Carolina on the following dates:
• Tuesday, January 5, 2016; Mason Preparatory School; 56 Halsey Boulevard, Charleston, South Carolina 29401; 6:00-8:00 p.m.;
• Wednesday, January 6, 2016; St. James High School; 10800 SC-707, Murrells Inlet, South Carolina 29576; 6:00-8:00 p.m.; and
• Thursday, January 7, 2016; Boulineau's (Second Floor Meeting Room); 212 Sea Mountain Highway, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29582; 6:00-8:00 p.m.
Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments and/or agencies and the public are requested to send their written comments regarding environmental issues and the identification of reasonable alternatives related to the proposed action described in this notice through one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
2. U.S. mail in an envelope labeled “Comments on South Carolina EA” and addressed to Program Manager, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 45600 Woodland Road, VAM-OREP, Sterling, Virginia 20166. Comments must be postmarked by the last day of the comment period to be considered. This date is January 25, 2016.
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 comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This Notice of Intent to prepare an EA is in compliance with NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4231
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Call for Information and Nominations for Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf, Offshore South Carolina.
BOEM invites the submission of nominations for commercial wind leases that would allow a lessee to propose the construction of a wind energy project on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore South Carolina, and to develop the project if approved after further environmental review. Although this announcement is not itself a leasing announcement, the Call Areas described herein, or portions thereof, may be available for future leasing. BOEM will use responses to this Call for Information and Nominations (Call) to gauge specific interest in acquiring commercial wind leases in some or all of the Call Areas, as required by 43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3).
Parties wishing to submit a nomination in response to this Call should submit detailed and specific information in response to the requirements described in the section entitled, “Required Nomination Information.”
This announcement also requests comments and information from interested and affected parties about site conditions, resources, and multiple uses in close proximity to, or within, the Call Areas that would be relevant to BOEM's review of any nominations submitted and/or to BOEM's subsequent decision to offer all or part of the Call Areas for commercial wind leasing. The information that BOEM is requesting is described in the section of this Call entitled, “Requested Information from Interested or Affected Parties.”
This Call is published pursuant to subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3), which was added by section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), as well as the implementing regulations at 30 CFR part 585.
The Call Areas described in this notice are located on the OCS offshore South Carolina and are delineated as Grand Strand, Cape Romain, Winyah, and Charleston. The four Call Areas include 110 whole OCS blocks and 84 partial blocks in total and comprise approximately 1,007.56 square nautical miles (nmi) (345,584 hectares). These Call Areas were established in consultation with the BOEM South Carolina Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force (Task Force). A detailed description of the areas and how they were developed is described in the section of this Call entitled, “Description of the Area.”
BOEM must receive nominations describing your interest in one or more, or any portion of the Call Areas, by a postmarked date of January 25, 2016 January 25, 2016 for your nomination to be considered. BOEM requests comments or submissions of information to be postmarked or delivered by this same date. BOEM will consider only those nominations received that conform to this requirement.
Comments and other submissions of information may be submitted by either of the following two methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
2. U.S. Postal Service or other delivery service. Send your comments and information to the following address: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road (VAM-OREP), Sterling, Virginia 20166.
All responses will be reported on
If you wish to protect the confidentiality of your nominations or comments, clearly mark the relevant sections and request that BOEM treat them as confidential. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information,” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment. Treatment of confidential information is addressed in the section of this Call entitled, “Protection of Privileged or Confidential Information.” Information that is not labeled as privileged or confidential will be regarded by BOEM as suitable for public release.
Jeff Browning, BOEM, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road (VAM-OREP), Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 787-1577 or
The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act requires BOEM to award leases competitively, unless BOEM makes a determination that there is no competitive interest (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3)). BOEM will make this determination after reviewing the nominations received in response to this Call.
This Call also requests information from interested and affected parties on issues relevant to BOEM's review of nominations for potential leases in the Call Areas. A lease, whether issued through a competitive or noncompetitive process, gives the lessee the exclusive right to subsequently seek BOEM approval for the development of the leasehold. The lease does not grant the lessee the right to construct any facilities; rather, the lease grants the lessee the right to use the leased area to develop its plans, which BOEM must approve before the lessee may proceed to the next stage of the process (30 CFR 585.600 and 585.601). The responses to this Call could lead to the initiation of a competitive leasing process in some parts of the Call Areas (
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) amended the OCS Lands Act by adding subsection 8(p)(1)(C), which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way (ROWs) on the OCS for activities that are not otherwise authorized by law and that produce or support production, transportation, or transmission of energy from sources other than oil or gas, including renewable energy sources. The EPAct also required the issuance of regulations to carry out the new authority pertaining to renewable energy on the OCS. The Secretary delegated this authority to issue leases, easements, and ROWs, and to promulgate regulations, to the Director of BOEM. On April 29, 2009, BOEM published the rule, Renewable Energy and Alternate Uses of Existing Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf, at 30 CFR part 585, which can be found at:
On July 19, 2010, the President signed Executive Order 13547 (Order) establishing a national ocean policy and the National Ocean Council (75 FR 43023). The Order establishes a comprehensive, integrated national policy for the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. Where BOEM actions affect the ocean or coast, the Order requires BOEM to take such action as necessary to implement the policy, stewardship principles, and national priority objectives adopted by the Order, with guidance from the National Ocean Council.
BOEM appreciates the importance of coordinating its planning endeavors with other OCS users, regulators and relevant Federal Agencies (
BOEM formed the South Carolina Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force (the “Task Force”) in March 2012, to facilitate coordination among relevant Federal agencies and affected state, local, and tribal governments throughout the leasing process. The Task Force meeting materials are available on the BOEM Web site at:
BOEM intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA), which will consider the environmental consequences associated with issuing commercial wind leases and approving site assessment activities on those leases within all or some of the Call Areas. BOEM is publishing, concurrently with this Call, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EA, which seeks public input in identifying the environmental issues and reasonable alternatives to be considered in the EA.
The EA will consider the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences associated with leasing and site characterization scenarios within the Call Areas (including geophysical, geotechnical, archaeological, and biological surveys), and site assessment scenarios (including the installation and operation of meteorological towers and/or buoys) on the potential leaseholds. The environmental effects of the construction or operation of any wind energy facility would be considered under a separate, project-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The NOI also solicits information pertaining to impacts to historic properties, which include historic districts, archaeological sites, and National Historic Landmarks.
Several consultations will be conducted concurrently with, and integrated into, the current NEPA process. These consultations include, but are not limited to, those required by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Executive Order 13175—“Consultation and Coordination with Tribal Governments.” The results of these consultations will assist BOEM in deciding whether and where leases may be issued.
BOEM recognizes the importance of the steps that the State of South Carolina has taken to encourage environmentally sound offshore wind energy development. While a state may promote such development, BOEM has the exclusive authority to issue leases, easements, and ROWs on the OCS for renewable energy purposes.
The State of South Carolina has been engaged in a planning process to evaluate and identify areas of the OCS that may be suitable for offshore wind energy development. This process helped inform state recommendations to BOEM regarding potentially suitable areas for BOEM to consider when moving forward with its offshore wind energy leasing process.
In 2008, the South Carolina General Assembly passed Act 318 to create the Wind Energy Production Farms Feasibility Study Committee (Committee) to study and make recommendations regarding the feasibility of wind turbines in the state, as well as the potential economic and environmental impacts of development.
Also in 2008, the State of South Carolina, along with multiple partners, obtained a DOE grant entitled,
Also funded under this grant was a South Carolina Regulatory Task Force, which was established in April 2009 to review the current regulatory environment and identify potential barriers to wind, wave and tidal energy development off the coast of South Carolina. This group is composed of State and Federal regulatory and resource protection agencies, universities, private industry and utility companies, and is distinct from BOEM's Task Force.
In 2014, BOEM initiated a cooperative research agreement with South Carolina that was coordinated through the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium. Information from this research agreement will assist BOEM in planning efforts offshore South Carolina, including environmental documents and consultations.
The first step in the leasing process is to determine whether or not there is any interest in acquiring a lease within the Call Areas for the purpose of offshore wind development. At the same time, BOEM can determine whether there is overlapping interest in any particular portion of the Call Areas that would result in the need for a competitive process. At the conclusion of the comment period for this Call, BOEM will review the nominations received, undertake completeness and qualifications reviews, and determine whether competitive interest exists in any specific location within the Call Areas.
If two nominated areas of interest fully or partially overlap, BOEM may proceed with competitive leasing as described in the section of this Call entitled, “Competitive Leasing Process.” For areas where BOEM determines that there is no competitive interest, BOEM may proceed with noncompetitive leasing described in the section entitled, “Noncompetitive Leasing Process.” BOEM may consult with the Task Force throughout the leasing process.
Situations may arise in which multiple parties nominate areas that do not overlap. Under those circumstances, BOEM could choose to employ an allocation system of leases that involves the creation of competition across tracts. This system is referred to as intertract competition and would also be implemented under the competitive process outlined in the regulations. BOEM may consult with the Task Force in determining the need for, and/or use of, intertract competition.
Respondents to this Call and members of the public should be aware that no lease will be issued, either competitively or noncompetitively, until the necessary consultations and environmental analysis have been completed and the public has been given an opportunity to comment. As a result, it is also possible that certain areas nominated may not be leased, or that the areas nominated may be modified from their original, proposed form before being offered for lease. It is possible that responses to this Call may result in a determination that there is competitive interest in acquiring leases in some areas, but not in others. BOEM will publicly announce its determinations before proceeding with any type of leasing process.
If, after receiving responses and nominations to this Call, BOEM proceeds with the competitive leasing process for certain areas, it would follow the steps required by 30 CFR 585.211 through 585.225.
(1) Area Identification: Based on the information submitted in response to this Call and the NOI, BOEM would determine the level of interest and identify the area(s) that would be appropriate to move forward within the planning and leasing process. The area(s) identified will constitute a Wind Energy Area (WEA) under the Secretary's “Smart from the Start” wind energy initiative and will be subject to environmental analysis, in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, states, local governments, tribes, and other interested parties.
(2) Proposed Sale Notice (PSN): If BOEM decides to proceed with competitive lease issuance in the WEAs after completion of the environmental analysis, then BOEM would publish the PSN in the
(3) Final Sale Notice (FSN): If BOEM decides to proceed with competitive lease issuance after considering comments on the PSN, then it would publish the FSN in the
(4) Bid Submission and Evaluation: Following publication of the FSN in the
(5) Issuance of a Lease: Following the selection of a winning bid(s) by BOEM, the bidder(s) would be notified of the decision and provided a set of official lease documents for execution. The successful bidder(s) would be required to sign and return the lease, pay the remainder of the bonus bid, if applicable, and file the required financial assurance within 10 days of receiving the lease documents. Upon receipt of the required payments, financial assurance, and properly signed lease forms, BOEM would execute a lease with the successful bidder(s).
(1) Determination of No Competitive Interest: If, after evaluating the responses to this Call, BOEM determines that there is no competitive interest in a proposed lease area, it may proceed with the noncompetitive lease issuance process pursuant to 30 CFR 585.232, as amended by the rulemaking which took effect on June 15, 2011 (76 FR 28178). Should BOEM decide to proceed with the noncompetitive leasing process, it would ask if the sole respondent who nominated a particular area wants to proceed with acquiring the lease. If so, the respondent must submit an acquisition fee as specified in 30 CFR 585.502(a). After receiving the acquisition fee, BOEM would follow the process outlined in 30 CFR 585.231(d) through (i). If BOEM determines there is no competitive interest, BOEM would publish a notice of Determination of No Competitive Interest in the
(2) Review of Lease Request: BOEM would comply with the requirements of NEPA, CZMA, ESA, NHPA, and other applicable Federal statutes before issuing a lease noncompetitively. BOEM would coordinate and consult, as appropriate, with relevant Federal agencies, affected tribes, and affected state and local governments prior to issuing a noncompetitive lease, and in formulating lease terms, conditions, and stipulations.
(3) Lease Issuance: After completing the review of the lease request, BOEM may offer a noncompetitive lease. BOEM will require a $100,000 lease-specific bond from the lessee before lease issuance. The first 12 months' rent payment is due within 45 days of the date that the lease is received by the Lessee for execution.
The Call Areas offshore South Carolina are delineated as Grand Strand, Cape Romain, Charleston, and Winyah. The four Areas include 110 whole OCS blocks and 84 partial blocks in total, and comprise approximately 1,007.56 square nmi (345,584 hectares).
The boundary of Call Area Grand Strand begins 3 nmi from the shore and extends roughly 23 nmi seaward. It extends from northeast to southwest approximately 46 nmi. Respondents should be aware that Georgetown NI17-09 Blocks 6224,6225,6273,6274, 6322, 6323 border the edge of Submerged Lands Act (SLA) boundary. As a result, while these blocks are considered full OCS lease blocks, they vary in area and are smaller than standard OCS blocks. Official acreages for the blocks located within Official Protraction Diagram (OPD) Georgetown NI17-09 can be found at:
The boundary of Call Area Cape Romain begins 6 nmi from the shore and extends roughly 11.5 nmi seaward. It extends from northeast to southwest approximately 32 nmi. The entire area is approximately 183.46 square nmi (62,928 hectares) and is described in the table below:
The boundary of Call Area Charleston begins approximately 23 nmi from the shore and extends roughly 10.5 nmi seaward. It extends from northeast to southwest approximately 10 nmi. The entire area is approximately 41.98 square nmi (14,400 hectares) and is described in the table below:
The boundary of Call Area Winyah begins 35 nmi from the shore and extends roughly 6 nmi seaward. It extends from northeast to southwest approximately 16 nmi. The entire area is approximately 41.14 square nmi (14,112 hectares) and is described in the table below:
BOEM considered the findings of several studies conducted by the State of South Carolina, Task Force input, and other relevant studies and removed the following areas from further leasing consideration:
1. Artificial reefs that are managed as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC's): Lease blocks containing known artificial reefs have not been included because it would likely be impractical to conduct ocean-bottom penetrating activities or install foundations on existing subsea structures or hazards. In addition, there could be the potential for multiple-use issues (
2. Areas of High Avian Densities: BOEM attempts to avoid leasing areas with high concentrations of marine birds that are most vulnerable to offshore wind development. In order to protect marine birds, BOEM has removed areas with moderate or greater concentration of near-shore marine birds. Counts of birds from USFWS's wintering sea duck surveys from 2008-2011 were used to identify areas of high concentrations of scoters. In addition, a map that predicts relatively high concentrations of near-shore marine bird species near the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Winyah Bay was used to fill in information gaps between the sea duck transect lines and to cover other migratory species. The map uses data from an ongoing BOEM/NOAA study entitled, “Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Seabird Distribution and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf,” which can be found at
As with the sea duck survey data, the BOEM/NOAA study confirms that the concentration of birds declines dramatically with distance from shore and that the distance from shore before the dramatic decline in concentration varies widely along the South Carolina coast. Lastly, a study of 28 black scoters that were fitted with satellite transmitters found that most bird locations along the portion of the South Carolina coast encompassing the Call Areas were within five miles of the coast. In fact, out of the 20,333 scoters observed off South Carolina in February during the USFWS winter sea duck surveys, approximately 100 scoters were within the proposed Call Areas.
3. Cape Romain NWR: BOEM has taken steps to protect species that use the Cape Romain NWR by removing blocks with high concentrations of near-shore marine birds. Although Call Area Cape Romain is located offshore of the Cape Romain NWR, certain onshore activities associated with offshore wind energy, such as cable landfalls and staging activities, may not be compatible with the Cape Romain NWR. BOEM will work with the USFWS regarding potential impacts to Cape Romain NWR and, if necessary, will develop appropriate stipulations and mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce impacts.
4. Military Areas: The Department of Defense (DOD) conducts operations and readiness activities for both hardware and personnel on the OCS. The Call Areas were refined based on DOD assessments of compatibility between potential commercial offshore wind development and DOD testing, training and operational activities. OCS blocks determined to be incompatible with these activities were removed from consideration, although site specific stipulations may be necessary for remaining lease blocks in the Call Areas to avoid conflicts with DOD activities. BOEM will consult with the DOD regarding potential issues concerning offshore testing, training and operational activities, and will develop appropriate stipulations to avoid or mitigate conflicts with DOD in the Call Areas.
5. Navigation: The United States Coast Guard (USCG) ensures the safety of navigation and provides safe access routes for the movement of vessel traffic proceeding to or from ports or places subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The USCG uses a color-coding system to designate portions of the four Call Areas as green, yellow, or red for navigational safety. A designation of green indicates that the USCG believes that an area, if developed, would pose minimal to no detrimental impact on navigational safety, but that the area should still be subject to further study. A designation of yellow indicates that the USCG believes that development of the area could have unacceptable effects on navigational safety and that further study is required to determine the potential effect that development of the
6. Pawleys Island Historic District—Visual Impacts: BOEM has removed aliquots from the Grand Strand Call Area that are located within 18.5 km kilometers (10 nmi) of the shoreline surrounding the Pawleys Island Historic District. In making its decision, BOEM considered the following information: Comments shared with BOEM at the South Carolina Task Force meeting on September 9, 2015; NHPA Section 106 consultations for the development of the South Atlantic Programmatic Agreement, during which the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office requested that BOEM consider the visual effects of the introduction of a wind energy facility on the historic setting and feeling of onshore historic properties; and a letter sent to BOEM from the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office on September 18, 2015, asking BOEM to consider “how the views of the ocean contribute to the historic location, setting, feeling, and association” of these historic properties.
The unique characteristics of Pawleys Island Historic District that may qualify it for the National Register of Historic Places include integrity of setting and feeling. As described by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Nomination Form for Pawleys Island Historic District, “this Island, especially the central part, exemplifies a way of life in its beauty, its setting, and its overall land use. Pawleys is one of the earliest—if not the earliest—of South Carolina's summer beach settlements and maintains integrity in the natural relationship of marsh, beach, and dune.” The nomination form can be found here:
The decision to set the buffer at 10 nmi is consistent with information obtained from the North Carolina Visual Simulations study, which analyzed meteorological conditions within the North Carolina study areas and are expected to be meteorologically similar to the South Carolina Call Areas. This is the best information presently available to us for use in estimating an effective setback for the purposes of reducing impacts to viewshed for sensitive areas in South Carolina. The study may be found here:
With a setback of 10 nmi, the turbines will not be visible from the shoreline for a majority of the time. The data show that, for an average 24-hour period, there is visibility to 18.5 km (10 nmi) for the majority of the day, 132 days per year (or 36% of the year). At a 10 nmi setback, there will be no effect on the viewshed for the majority of the day, 233 days per year (or 64% of the year). Additional consideration of viewshed impacts to potentially affected historic properties—including the Pawleys Island Historic District—may be undertaken during subsequent Section 106 reviews conducted by BOEM for activities proposed within this area.
7. Grand Strand Call Area—Visual Impacts on Sunset Beach, NC: Portions of the adjacent Grand Strand Call Area are within 10 nmi of Sunset Beach, NC. During the public comment period for the North Carolina Call (published in December 2012), certain stakeholders raised concerns regarding potential visual impacts of offshore wind energy development in areas within the Wilmington West Wind Energy Area (WEA). Based on BOEM's analysis of these concerns, including the North Carolina Visual Simulations study described above, BOEM announced that areas within 10 nmi of Sunset Beach, NC would not be included as part of the Wilmington West WEA. Consistent with its approach in North Carolina, BOEM has therefore removed the OCS blocks from the Grand Strand Call Area that are within 10 nmi of Sunset Beach, NC.
Based on requests received from members of the Task Force, comments received during public information meetings, and initiatives passed by local government officials, BOEM is considering the potential effects of wind energy development on historic properties early in the planning process. BOEM therefore requests specific information on historic properties located in nearshore areas adjacent to the Call Areas. Specifically, BOEM is requesting information on historic sites, districts, and National Historic Landmarks, as well as cultural corridors and other historic properties, whose viewsheds may be a contributing element to eligibility to the NRHP.
There are a total of 88 known properties listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the NRHP located along the coastline within Horry, Georgetown, and Beaufort Counties. These properties include sites, structures, districts, and objects. Specifically, there are seven NRHP-listed lighthouses located within the coastal vicinity of South Carolina (Georgetown Light, Cape Romain Lighthouse, Morris Island Light, Hunting Island Light, Hilton Head Range Light, and Bloody Point Range Lights (within the Daufuskie Island Historic District)). In addition, there are five National Historic Landmarks located within the coastal vicinity of South Carolina (Atalaya and Brookgreen Gardens, Robert William Roper House, USS
Early in the planning process, BOEM considers the effects of introducing visual elements associated with offshore wind energy development into the landscape. As such, BOEM is requesting information that may guide early development of effective mitigation measures. Potential visual impacts may be mitigated through various means, including siting facilities away from sensitive areas.
The mission of the NPS, as set forth under the NPS Organic Act, is to protect the natural and cultural resources, including the scenery, in units of the National Park System, and to provide for their enjoyment in a manner that will leave them unimpaired for future generations (
On February 20, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule to expand critical habitat for North Atlantic right whales in the North Atlantic, adding two new areas (80 FR 9314). Proposed Critical Habitat Unit 2 includes marine waters from Cape Fear, NC southward to 29′ N latitude (approximately 43 miles north of Cape Canaveral, Florida). The Grand Strand and Cape Romain Call Areas overlap with Unit 2 areas in the
The Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor (Corridor) was designated by Congress in 2006 (Pub. L. 109-338) and extends from Wilmington, North Carolina to Jacksonville, Florida. The Corridor is home to a unique culture that was first shaped by West African slaves brought to the southern United States. Their traditions continue today through their descendants, known as the Gullah/Geechee people. The Corridor was established to:
• Recognize the important contributions made to American culture and history by African Americans known as the Gullah/Geechee who settled in the coastal counties of South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida;
• assist state and local governments and public and private entities in South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida in interpreting the story of the Gullah/Geechee and preserving Gullah/Geechee folklore, arts, crafts, and music; and
• assist in identifying and preserving sites, historical data, artifacts, and objects associated with the Gullah/Geechee for the benefit and education of the public.
• consult with the Secretary of the Interior and the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission (GGCHCC) with respect to such activities;
• cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior and the GGCHCC in carrying out their duties and, to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate such activities with the carrying out of such duties; and
• to the maximum extent practicable, conduct or support such activities in a manner which the GGCHCC determines will not have an adverse effect on the Corridor.
BOEM is asking for information on areas within the Corridor which may be affected by wind energy development on the OCS offshore South Carolina and any mitigation measures which may be implemented to reduce potential impacts.
BOEM has analyzed USCG 2009 through 2012 Automatic Identification System (AIS) data, including density plots (by 1/16th of an OCS Block) for various individual vessel types (
The USCG considers the placement of offshore wind assessment and generation facilities in any area within 2 nmi of traditional shipping routes poses a risk to navigational safety and therefore does not recommend placement of such facilities in those areas. The USCG considers placement of such wind facilities in areas greater than 5 nmi from existing shipping routes to pose minimal risk to navigational safety. Areas considered for placement of wind facilities between 2 nmi and 5 nmi would require additional USCG analysis to determine if mitigation factors could be applied to bring navigational safety risk within USCG acceptable levels.
The Grand Strand Call Area is adjacent to the Wilmington West WEA in North Carolina. Certain North Carolina stakeholders have expressed concerns over visual impacts from offshore wind energy development. The state of North Carolina and other local governments have requested a 24 nmi buffer from the North Carolina coastline. BOEM considers the effects of visual elements associated with offshore wind energy development, and will continue to do so throughout the planning process offshore South Carolina. As such, BOEM is requesting information and comments that may guide the early development of potential mitigation measures for visual impacts in Call Areas offshore South Carolina.
If you intend to submit a nomination for a commercial wind energy lease in the areas identified in this notice, you must provide the following information: (1) The BOEM Protraction name, number, and specific whole or partial OCS blocks within the Call Area(s) that are of interest for commercial wind leasing, including any required buffer area. This information should be submitted as a spatial file compatible with ArcGIS 10.0 in a geographic coordinate system (NAD 83) in addition to your hard copy submittal. If your proposed lease area(s) includes one or more partial blocks, please describe those partial blocks in terms of a sixteenth (
(2) A description of your objectives and the facilities that you would use to achieve those objectives.
(3) A preliminary schedule of proposed activities, including those leading to commercial operations.
(4) Available and pertinent data and information concerning renewable energy resources and environmental conditions in the area(s) that you wish to lease, including energy and resource data and information used to evaluate the Call Areas. Where applicable, spatial information should be submitted in a format compatible with ArcGIS 10.0 in a geographic coordinate system (NAD 83).
(5) Documentation demonstrating that you are legally qualified to hold a lease, as set forth in 30 CFR 585.106 and 107. Examples of the documentation appropriate for demonstrating your legal qualifications and related guidance can be found in Chapter 2 and Appendix B of the BOEM Renewable Energy Framework Guide Book available at:
(6) Documentation demonstrating that you are technically and financially capable of constructing, operating, maintaining and decommissioning the facilities described in (2) above. Guidance regarding the required documentation to demonstrate your technical and financial qualifications can be found at:
It is critical that you submit a complete nomination so that BOEM may evaluate your submission in a timely manner. If BOEM reviews your nomination and determines that it is incomplete, BOEM will inform you of this determination in a letter describing the information that BOEM determined to be missing from your nomination. You must then submit this information in order for BOEM to deem your submission complete. You will be given 15 business days from the date of that letter to submit the information that BOEM found to be missing from your original submission. If you do not meet this deadline, or if BOEM determines this second submission is insufficient and has failed to complete your nomination, then BOEM retains the right to deem your nomination invalid. In such a case, BOEM will not process your nomination.
It is not required that you submit a nomination in response to this Call in order to submit a bid in a potential competitive lease sale offshore South Carolina, should BOEM determine that competitive interest exists in one or more portions of the Call Areas after the close of the Call comment period. However, you will not be able to participate in such a lease sale unless you demonstrate prior to the sale that you are legally qualified to hold a BOEM renewable energy lease, and you demonstrate that you are technically and financially capable of constructing, operating, maintaining, and decommissioning the facilities you would propose to install on your lease. To ensure that BOEM has sufficient time to process your qualifications package, you should submit this package during the PSN 60-day public comment period. More information can be found at:
BOEM is requesting specific and detailed comments from the public and other interested or affected parties regarding the following:
1. Geological, geophysical, and biological conditions (including bottom and shallow hazards and live bottom) in the area described in this notice.
2. Known archaeological and/or cultural resource sites on the seabed in the areas described in this notice.
3. Historic properties potentially affected by the construction of meteorological towers, the installation of meteorological buoys, or commercial wind development in the areas identified in this Call.
4. Multiple uses of the areas, including navigation (commercial and recreational vessel use), fishing hotspots, and commercial fishing areas.
5. Information relating to whether or not offshore wind turbines located in the areas identified in this notice would adversely affect the South Carolina seascape, and ideas or strategies that could be used to help mitigate or minimize any adverse visual effects, such as: how far offshore turbines should be placed to minimize the visual impact from the coastline; specific locations or areas to avoid development altogether; or any other strategies to help reduce the visual footprint (for example, the color of the turbines [towers, nacelle, blades], the arrangement or pattern of the turbine array, the dimension of the turbines (
6. The type of transmission system (
7. General interest by a developer(s) in constructing a backbone transmission system that would transport electricity generated by wind projects located offshore South Carolina, including a general description of the transmission's proposed path and potential interconnection points.
8. Available and pertinent data and information concerning renewable energy resources and environmental conditions in the area identified in this notice. Where applicable, spatial information should be submitted in a format compatible with ArcGIS 10.0 in a geographic coordinate system (NAD 83).
9. Habitats that may require special attention during siting and construction.
10. Other relevant socioeconomic, biological, and environmental information.
BOEM will protect privileged or confidential information that you submit when required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 of FOIA applies to trade secrets and commercial or financial information that you submit that is privileged or confidential. If you wish to protect the confidentiality of such information, clearly mark it and request that BOEM treat it as confidential. BOEM will not disclose such information if it qualifies for exemption from disclosure under FOIA. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment.
BOEM will not treat as confidential any aggregate summaries of such information or comments not containing such information. Additionally, BOEM will not treat as confidential (1) the legal title of the nominating entity (for example, the name of your company), or (2) the list of whole or partial blocks that you are nominating. Information that is not labeled as privileged or confidential will be regarded by BOEM as suitable for public release.
BOEM is required, after consultation with the Secretary, to withhold the location, character, or ownership of historic resources if it determines that disclosure may, among other things, risk harm to the historic resources or impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. Tribal entities should designate information that falls under Section 304 of NHPA as confidential.
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 Federal-Mogul Motorparts Corporation on November 19, 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 chassis parts incorporating movable sockets and components thereof. The complaint names as a respondent Mevotech, L.P. of Canada. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
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. 3102”) 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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“The Act”) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China and revocation of the antidumping duty orders on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date.
Michael Szustakowski (202-205-3169), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office
For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
On November 6, 2015, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (80 FR 46048, August 3, 2015) was adequate and that the respondent interested party group with respect to the review on subject imports from Taiwan was adequate, and decided to conduct a full review of the antidumping duty order on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from Taiwan. Although the Commission received a response to its notice of institution from Chinese respondent interested parties, the Commission found that the respondent interested party group response with respect to the reviews on subject imports from China was inadequate.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before December 28, 2015. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before December 28, 2015.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODXL, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section. 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 03, 2014, VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards Warehouse, 3 Perimeter Road, Manchester, New Hampshire 03103 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers for research and analytical purposes. Placement of these drug codes onto the company's registration does not translate into automatic approval of subsequent permit applications to import controlled substances.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
On July 23, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to William Mikaitis, M.D. (Registrant), of Lockport, Illinois. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration AM1585770, and the denial of any applications to renew or modify the registration as well as any other applications for a DEA registration, on the ground that he “do[es] not have authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in Illinois, the [S]tate in which [he] is registered with the DEA.” Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).
The Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant is registered with the DEA as a practitioner authorized to handle controlled substances in Schedules II through V at the registered address of 1206 E. 9th St., Suite 210, Lockport, Illinois.
The Order further alleged that “[e]ffective March 5, 2015, the State of Illinois, Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR), Division of Professional Regulation, issued an Order in which the IDFPR temporarily suspended [his] Illinois [P]hysician and [S]urgeon [L]icense and [his] controlled substance licenses” and that “[t]his Order remains in effect.”
The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option.
On July 30, 2015, a Diversion Investigator met Registrant at the office of his attorney and personally served the Show Cause Order on him.
Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration AM1585770, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II-V as a practitioner, at the registered address of 1206 E. 9th St., Suite 210, Lockport, Illinois. GX 2. His registration does not expire until January 31, 2018.
On March 5, 2015, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Professional Regulation, ordered the suspension of Respondent's Illinois Physician and Surgeon License, as well as his state Controlled Substance Licenses, pending proceedings before the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation and the Medical Disciplinary Board of the State. GX 4 at 1. I take official notice that as of this date, the public Web site maintained by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation shows that Registrant's Physician and Surgeon License as well as his Illinois Controlled Substance Licenses remain suspended based on the State's allegations that he engaged in “unprofessional conduct, aid[ed] and abet[ed] [the] unlicensed practice of medicine and [committed] multiple violations of the Controlled Substance Act.”
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823, “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Moreover, DEA has repeatedly held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean [ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . to dispense . . . controlled substances . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has long held that the revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices medicine.
This is so even where a state board has suspended a practitioner's authority prior to providing the practitioner with a hearing to contest the board's allegations.
Because Registrant currently lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in Illinois, the State in which he holds his DEA registration, I will order that his registration be revoked and that any pending applications be denied.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 21 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration AM1585770, issued to William Mikaitis, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of William Mikaitis, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, as well as any other pending application of William Mikaitis, M.D., for a DEA Certificate of Registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 25, 2016.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Affected public (Primary): Business or other for-profit.
Affected public (Other): Not-for-profit institutions; Federal, State, local, and tribal governments.
Abstract: This collection provides the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) with a national database on analyzed drug evidence from non-federal laboratories. Information from this database is combined with the other existing databases to develop more accurate, up-to-date information on abused drugs. This database represents a voluntary, cooperative effort on the part of participating laboratories to provide a centralized source of analyzed drug data.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice is hereby given that, for a period of 30 days, the United States will receive public comments on a proposed Settlement Agreement and Final Judgment on Consent (“Settlement Agreement”) in
The Complaint in this case was filed against ATP Oil & Gas Corporation (“ATP”) and ATP Infrastructure Partners, LP (“ATP-IP”) in February 2013. The Complaint seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and injunctive relief under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) related to unauthorized discharges of oil and chemicals from an oil platform, the ATP Innovator, into the Gulf of Mexico. ATP is going through a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding and is no longer operating.
Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, ATP agrees to a final civil penalty judgment of $38 million for multiple alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. The penalty judgment will be treated as an allowed unsecured claim in ATP's bankruptcy proceeding. A prior settlement approved by the district court in May 2015 resolved the claims against ATP-IP and secured penalties as well as OCSLA and CWA injunctive relief related to the safe future operation of the ATP Innovator in U.S. waters.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Settlement Agreement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $3.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App), NARA announces an upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress.
The meeting will be on Monday, December 14, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EST.
Center for Legislative Archives, by mail at 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20408, by telephone at (202) 357-5350, or by email at
(1) Chair's Opening Remarks—Secretary of the U.S. Senate
(2) Recognition of Co-chair—Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives
(3) Recognition of the Archivist of the United States
(4) Approval of the minutes of the last meeting
(5) Senate Archivist's report
(6) House Archivist's report
(7) Center Update
(8) Other current issues and new business
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App) and the second United States Open Government National Action Plan (NAP) released on December 5, 2013, NARA announces an upcoming Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee meeting.
The meeting will be on January 19, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EST. You must register for the meeting by 5:00 p.m. EST on January 18, 2016.
Christa Lemelin, Designated Federal Officer for this committee, by mail at National Archives and Records Administration; Office of Government Information Services; 8601 Adelphi Road—OGIS; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by telephone at 202-741-5773, or by email at
National Labor Relations Board
The National Labor Relations Board is issuing this notice that the individuals whose names and position titles appear below have been appointed to serve as members of performance review boards in the National Labor Relations Board for the rating year beginning October 1, 2014 and ending September 30, 2015.
5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
Gary Shinners, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street NW., Washington, DC 20570, (202) 273-3737 (this is not a toll-free number), 1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).
By Direction of the Board.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal and record of decision; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued renewed facility operating license Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon or the licensee), the operator of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 (Byron), respectively. Renewed facility operating license Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 authorize operation of Byron Units 1 and 2 by the licensee at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3645 megawatts thermal each, in accordance with the provisions of the Byron Units 1 and 2 renewed licenses and technical specifications. In addition, the NRC has prepared a record of decision (ROD) that supports the NRC's decision to renew facility operating license Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66.
The license renewal of facility operating license Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 were effective on November 19, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0169 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.
John Daily, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3873; email:
Notice is hereby given that the NRC has issued renewed facility operating license Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, the operator of Byron. Renewed facility operating license Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 authorize operation of Byron Units 1 and 2 by the licensee at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3645 megawatts thermal each, in accordance with the provisions of the Byron, Units 1 and 2 renewed licenses and technical specifications. The NRC's ROD that supports the NRC's decision to renew facility operating license Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15187A304. As discussed in the ROD and the final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) for Byron Station, Supplement 54 to NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Byron Station, Units 1 and 2,” dated July 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15196A263), the NRC has considered a range of reasonable alternatives that included new nuclear generation, coal-integrated gasification combined cycle, natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC), combination (NGCC, wind, and solar generation), replacement power, and the no-action alternative. The ROD and FSEIS document the NRC determination that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Byron are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable.
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 has two pressurized water reactors and is located in Ogle County, Illinois. The application for the renewed licenses, “License Renewal Application, Byron and Braidwood Stations, Units 1 and 2,” dated May 29, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13155A420 and ML13155A421, respectively), as supplemented by letters dated through April 13, 2015, with respect to Byron Station, complied with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the NRC's regulations. As required by the Act and the NRC's regulations in Chapter I of title 10 of the
For further details with respect to this action, see: (1) Exelon Generation Company, LLC's (Exelon) license renewal application for Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, dated May 29, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated through April 13, 2015; (2) the NRC's safety evaluation report dated July 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15182A051); (3) the NRC's final environmental impact statement (NUREG-1437, Supplement 54), for Byron, Units 1 and 2, published in July 2015; and (4) the NRC's ROD.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Appointments.
On October 27, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced its appointments to the NRC Performance Review Board (PRB) responsible for making recommendations on performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for the NRC Senior Executives and Senior Level System employees, and appointments to the NRC PRB Panel responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities for the NRC PRB members. This notice announces a change in the membership of the Senior Executive Service PRB for the NRC.
November 25, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0245 when contacting the NRC about the availability of
•
•
•
Miriam L. Cohen, Secretary, Executive Resources Board, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: 301-287-0747, email:
On October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65822), the NRC published its list of the NRC PRB appointees as required by the regulation at 5 CFR 430.310. The NRC PRB is responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities on performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for Senior Executives and Senior Level employees. This notice announces the removal of Michael F. Weber, who is unavailable to participate as a member of the PRB.
For the public's convenience, an updated membership list of the PRB is provided.
The following individuals appointed as members of the NRC PRB are responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities on performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for Senior Executives and Senior Level System employees:
The following individuals will serve as members of the NRC PRB Panel that was established to review appraisals and make recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities for NRC PRB members:
All appointments are made as required by Section 4314 of Chapter 43 of Title 5 of the United States Code.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peace Corps.
30-day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Peace Corps invites the general public to comment on this request for approval of a new proposed information collection, Peace Corps Post Service Survey (OMB Control Number 0420-pending. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Submit comments on or before December 28, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name/or OMB approval number and should be sent via email to:
Denora Miller, FOIA Officer, Peace Corps, 1111 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20526, (202) 692-1236, or email at
a. Estimated number of respondents: 12,000.
b. Estimated average burden per response: 5 minutes.
c. Frequency of response: One time.
d. Annual reporting burden: 1,000 hours.
e. Estimated annual cost to respondents: $0.00.
General description of collection: The Peace Corps Office Health Service (OHS) is interested in the satisfaction levels of Returned Peace Corps Volunteers (RPCVs) with the services received through the Post-Service Unit. In addition, OHS is interested in the various experiences that RPCVs have with the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) program so that OHS can better explain and assist RPCVs through the FECA application process. The information will be used by OHS to improve both our customer service as well as improve our ability to provide RPCVs with information related to the FECA system and the process by which RPCVs can apply and obtain benefits.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee Meeting Dates in 2016.
According to the provisions of section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given that meetings of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee will be held on—
The meetings will start at 10 a.m. and will be held in Room 5A06A, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Building, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is composed of a Chair, five representatives from labor unions holding exclusive bargaining rights for Federal prevailing rate employees, and five representatives from Federal agencies. Entitlement to membership on the Committee is provided for in 5 U.S.C. 5347.
The Committee's primary responsibility is to review the Prevailing Rate System and other matters pertinent to establishing prevailing rates under subchapter IV, chapter 53, 5 U.S.C., as amended, and from time to time advise the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
These scheduled meetings are open to the public with both labor and management representatives attending. During the meetings either the labor members or the management members may caucus separately to devise strategy and formulate positions. Premature disclosure of the matters discussed in these caucuses would unacceptably impair the ability of the Committee to reach a consensus on the matters being considered and would disrupt substantially the disposition of its business. Therefore, these caucuses will be closed to the public because of a determination made by the Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the provisions of section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). These caucuses may, depending on the issues involved, constitute a substantial portion of a meeting.
Annually, the Chair compiles a report of pay issues discussed and concluded recommendations. These reports are available to the public. Reports for calendar years 2008 to 2014 are posted at
The public is invited to submit material in writing to the Chair on Federal Wage System pay matters felt to be deserving of the Committee's attention. Additional information on these meetings may be obtained by contacting the Committee at U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, Room 5H27, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-2858.
The Presidio Trust.
Public notice.
This notice announces the Presidio Trust's receipt of and availability for public comment on an application from GTE Mobilnet of California d/b/a Verizon Wireless to construct and operate a new wireless telecommunications facilities site (“Project”) in the Presidio of San Francisco. The proposed location of the Project is in the vicinity of 1450 Battery Caulfield Road.
The Project involves (i) installing a 130-foot lattice tower to accommodate up to 12 antenna mounted at a centerline of 126 feet, and (ii) placing the associated radio and communications equipment on a concrete pad beneath the tower. Power and fiber connections for the project will be provided through underground cables connected to existing power and fiber sources.
Steve Carp, Presidio Trust, 103 Montgomery Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052. Email:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
CBOE proposes to change the trading hours for expiring MSCI EEAFE [sic] Index (“EAFE”) options. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
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.
On April 8, 2015, the Commission approved CBOE's proposal to list and trade options on the MSCI EAFE Index (“EAFE”) and the MSCI Emerging Market Index (“EM”).
When the Exchange filed to list EAFE options, the MSCI EAFE Index was not calculated and disseminated during the entire time period during which EAFE options would be traded.
Also, when CBOE originally filed to list EAFE options, MSCI, Inc. only included the companies of a component country that were listed on the component country's home market. For example, only those securities listed on domestic markets such as the Amsterdam Exchange were included for The Netherlands, a component country of the MSCI EAFE Index. Securities of Dutch companies listed on exchanges outside of The Netherlands were not included in the Index.
Beginning on December 1, 2015, foreign listed companies will become eligible for inclusion in the MSCI EAFE Index. This means that the MSCI EAFE Index will now include the prices of certain foreign listed companies that are listed and traded outside of their home markets on U.S. markets during the time that the U.S. equity markets are open, which is until 3:00 p.m. (Chicago time).
As a result, the Exchange proposes to change the trading hours for expiring EAFE options. Currently, trading in expiring EAFE options ends at 10:00 a.m. (Chicago time) on their expiration date. The Exchange established these trading hours for expiring EAFE options to align the trading hours of expiring EAFE options with expiring EAFE futures traded on the Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (“ICE”). Expiring EAFE futures listed on ICE trade stop trading at 10:00 a.m. (Chicago time) on the third Friday of the futures contract month.
Because the MSCI EAFE Index will now be calculated and disseminated through the close of trading on U.S. markets (until 3:00 p.m. (Chicago time)) and because ICE
CBOE it [sic] is not proposing to close expiring EAFE option contracts at 3:15 p.m. (Chicago time) as ICE is doing for expiring EAFE futures contracts. This is because on the last day of trading, the closing prices of the component stocks, which are used to derive the exercise settlement value, are known at 3:00 p.m. (Chicago time) (or shortly soon after) when the U.S. equity markets close. As a result, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to cease trading in expiring EAFE options at 3:00 p.m. (Chicago time) on their expiration day. The Exchange notes that this approach is consistent with the closing times for other expiring P.M.-settled contracts that underlie indexes that close when the U.S. equity markets close at 3:00 p.m. (Chicago time).
To effectuate this change, CBOE proposes to amend Rule 24.6.05, which sets forth that expiring EAFE options may trade between 8:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. (Chicago time), by replacing 10:00 a.m. (Chicago time) with 3:00 p.m. (Chicago time).
The Exchange proposes to begin using the change set forth in this rule filing beginning with the December 2015 expiration, which occurs on December 18, 2015. The Exchange states that this change is needed to closely align the trading hours in expiring EAFE options with the trading hours in expiring EAFE futures that trade on ICE.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
Specifically, the Exchange believes the filing would benefit investors by permitting them to trade expiring EAFE options throughout their expiration day and not just during a portion of their
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, CBOE believes that the filing would enable cross-market competition and facilitate hedging opportunities by closely aligning the trading hours in expiring EAFE options and futures. As a result, the Exchange does not believe that the filing would impose any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
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.
The Exchange has requested accelerated approval of the proposed rule change. The Commission is considering granting accelerated approval of the proposed rule change at the end of a 15-day comment period.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-104. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
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 is proposing a rule change to adopt generic listing standards for shares listed under BATS Rule 14.11(i) (“Managed Fund Shares”).
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 amend Rule 14.11(i) to adopt generic listing
Rule 14.11(i) sets forth certain rules related to the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares.
(a) represents an interest in a registered investment company (“Investment Company”) organized as an open-end management investment company or similar entity, that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by the Investment Company's investment adviser (hereafter “Adviser”) consistent with the Investment Company's investment objectives and policies;
(b) is issued in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of a specified portfolio of securities and/or a cash amount with a value equal to the next determined net asset value; and
(c) when aggregated in the same specified minimum number, may be redeemed at a holder's request, which holder will be paid a specified portfolio of securities and/or cash with a value equal to the next determined net asset value.
Effectively, Managed Fund Shares are securities issued by an actively-managed open-end Investment Company (
All Managed Fund Shares listed pursuant to Rule 14.11(i) are included within the definition of “security” or “securities” as such terms are used in the Rules of the Exchange and, as such, are subject to the full panoply of Exchange rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of securities on the Exchange.
In addition, Rule 14.11(i) currently provides for the criteria that Managed Fund Shares must satisfy for initial and continued listing on the Exchange, including, for example, that a minimum number of Managed Fund Shares are required to be outstanding at the time of commencement of trading on the Exchange. However, the current process for listing and trading new series of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange requires that the Exchange submit a proposed rule change with the Commission. In this regard, Rule 14.11(i)(2)(A) specifies that the Exchange will file separate proposals under Section 19(b) of the Act (hereafter, a “proposed rule change”) before the listing of Managed Fund Shares, which, in conjunction with the proposal to create generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares, the Exchange is proposing to delete.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 14.11(i) to specify that the Exchange may approve Managed Fund Shares for listing pursuant to SEC Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act, which pertains to derivative securities products (“SEC Rule 19b-4(e)”).
The Exchange would also specify within Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C) that components of Managed Fund Shares listed pursuant to SEC Rule 19b-4(e) must satisfy the requirements of Rule 14.11(i) on an initial and continued basis, which includes certain specific criteria that the Exchange is proposing to include within Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C), as described in greater detail below. As proposed, the Exchange would continue to file separate proposed rule changes before the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares with components that do not satisfy the additional criteria described below or components other than those specified below. For example, if the components of a Managed Fund Share exceeded one of the applicable thresholds, the Exchange would file a separate proposed rule change before listing and trading such Managed Fund Share. Similarly, if the components of a Managed Fund Share included a security or asset that is not specified below, the Exchange would file a separate proposed rule change.
The Exchange would also amend the definition of the term “Disclosed Portfolio” under Rule 14.11(i)(3)(B) in order to require that the Web site for each series of Managed Fund Shares listed on the Exchange disclose the following information regarding the Disclosed Portfolio, to the extent applicable: ticker symbol, CUSIP or other identifier, a description of the holding, identity of the asset upon which the derivative is based, the strike price for any options, the quantity of each security or other asset held as measured by select metrics, maturity date, coupon rate, effective date, market value and percentage weight of the holding in the portfolio.
The Exchange would also add to Rule 14.11(i)(4)(A) by specifying that all Managed Fund Shares must have a stated investment objective, which must be adhered to under normal market conditions.
Finally, the Exchange would also amend the continued listing requirement in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(B) by changing the requirement that an Intraday Indicative Value for Managed Fund Shares be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the time when the Managed Fund Shares trade on the Exchange to a requirement that an Intraday Indicative Value be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours, as defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(w).
The Exchange is proposing standards that would pertain to Managed Fund Shares to qualify for listing and trading pursuant to SEC Rule 19b-4(e). These standards would be grouped according to security or asset type. The Exchange notes that the standards proposed for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds equity securities, Derivative Securities Products, and Linked Securities are based in large part on the existing equity security standards applicable to Index Fund Shares in Exchange Rule 14.11(c)(3). The standards proposed for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds fixed income securities are based in large part on the existing fixed income security standards applicable to Index Fund Shares in Rule 14.11(c)(4). Many of the standards proposed for other types of holdings in a Managed Fund Share portfolio are based on previous proposed rule changes for specific series of Managed Fund Shares.
Proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i) would describe the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds equity securities, which are defined to be U.S. Component Stocks,
As proposed in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i)(a), the component stocks of the equity portion of a portfolio that are U.S. Component Stocks shall meet the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis:
(1) Component stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Linked Securities) that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the equity weight of the portfolio (excluding such Derivative Securities Products and Linked Securities) each must have a minimum market value of at least $75 million;
(2) Component stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Linked Securities) that in the aggregate account for at least 70% of the equity weight of the portfolio (excluding such Derivative Securities Products and Linked Securities) each must have a minimum monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months;
(3) The most heavily weighted component stock (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Linked Securities) must not exceed 30% of the equity weight of the portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted component stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Linked Securities) must not exceed 65% of the equity weight of the portfolio;
(4) Where the equity portion of the portfolio does not include Non-U.S. Component Stocks, the equity portion of the portfolio shall include a minimum of 13 component stocks; provided, however, that there would be no minimum number of component stocks if (a) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Linked Securities constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of Managed Fund Shares, or (b) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Linked Securities account for 100% of the equity weight of the portfolio of a series of Managed Fund Shares;
(5) Except as provided in proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i)(a), equity securities in the portfolio must be U.S. Component Stocks listed on a national securities exchange and must be NMS Stocks as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS;
(6) American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) may be sponsored or unsponsored. However no more than 10% of the equity weight of the portfolio shall consist of unsponsored ADRs.
As proposed in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i)(b), the component stocks of the equity portion of a portfolio that are Non-U.S. Component Stocks shall meet the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis:
(1) Non-U.S. Component Stocks each shall have a minimum market value of at least $100 million;
(2) Non-U.S. Component Stocks each shall have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months;
(3) The most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stock shall not exceed 25% of the equity weight of the portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stocks shall not exceed 60% of the equity weight of the portfolio;
(4) Where the equity portion of the portfolio includes Non-U.S. Component Stocks, the equity portion of the portfolio shall include a minimum of 20 component stocks; provided, however, that there shall be no minimum number of component stocks if (a) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Linked Securities constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of Managed Fund Shares, or (b) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Linked Securities account for 100% of the equity weight of the portfolio of a series of Managed Fund Shares;
(5) Each Non-U.S. Component Stock shall be listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting.
The Exchange notes that, as approved by the Commission for certain Managed Fund Shares
Proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii) would describe the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds fixed income securities, which are debt securities
(1) Components that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio shall each have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more;
(2) No component fixed-income security (excluding Treasury Securities and GSE Securities) could represent more than 30% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted fixed income securities in the portfolio shall not in the aggregate account for more than 65% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio;
(3) An underlying portfolio (excluding exempted securities) that includes fixed income securities shall include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers, provided, however, that there shall be no minimum number of non-affiliated issuers required for fixed income securities if at least 70% of the weight of the portfolio consists of equity securities as described in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i);
(4) Component securities that in aggregate account for at least 90% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio must be either: (a) From issuers that are required to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Act; (b) from issuers that have a worldwide market value of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more; (c) from issuers that have outstanding securities that are notes, bonds, debentures, or evidence of indebtedness having a total remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion; (d) exempted securities as defined in Section 3(a)(12) of the Act; or (e) from issuers that are a government of a
(5) Non-agency, non-GSE and privately-issued mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities components of a portfolio shall not account, in the aggregate, for more than 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the portfolio.
Proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iii) describes the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds cash and cash equivalents.
Proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv) describes the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds listed derivatives, including futures, options and swaps on commodities, currencies and financial instruments (
Proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(v) describes the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds over the counter (“OTC”) derivatives, including forwards, options and swaps on commodities, currencies and financial instruments (
Proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(vi) provides that, to the extent that listed or OTC derivatives are used to gain exposure to individual equities and/or fixed income securities, or to indexes of equities and/or fixed income securities, such equities and/or fixed income securities, as applicable, shall meet the criteria set forth in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i) and 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii), respectively. The Exchange notes that, for purposes of this proposal, a portfolio's investment in OTC derivatives will be calculated as the amount of any margin required by a counterparty for the purchase of a derivative by a fund.
The Exchange believes that the proposed standards would continue to ensure transparency surrounding the listing process for Managed Fund Shares. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed portfolio standards for listing and trading Managed Fund Shares, many of which track existing Exchange rules relating to Index Fund Shares, are reasonably designed to promote a fair and orderly market for such Managed Fund Shares. These proposed standards would also work in conjunction with the existing initial and continued listing criteria related to surveillance procedures and trading guidelines.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange represents that: (1) Generically listed Managed Fund Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under Rule 14.11(i)(4)(A) and (B); (2) the Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to continue to properly monitor the trading of the Managed Fund Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. Specifically, the Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products, which will include Managed Fund Shares, to monitor trading in the Managed Fund Shares; (3) prior to the commencement of trading of a particular series of Managed Fund Shares, the Exchange will inform its Members in an information circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Managed Fund Shares, including procedures for purchases and redemptions of Managed Fund Shares, suitability requirements under Rule 3.7, the risks involved in trading the Managed Fund Shares during the Pre-Opening and After Hours Trading Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated, how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value and Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated, prospectus delivery requirements, and other trading information. In addition, the information circular will disclose that the Managed Fund Shares are subject to various fees and expenses, as described in the registration statement, and will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. Finally, the Bulletin will disclose that the net asset value for the Managed Fund Shares will be calculated after 4 p.m. ET each trading day; and (4) the issuer of a series of Managed Fund Shares will be required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of Managed Fund Shares, as provided under Rule 14.10(c)(3).
The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues and that the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Members or issuers would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)
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 because it would facilitate the listing and trading of additional Managed Fund Shares, which would enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. Specifically, after more than six years under the current process, whereby an exchange is required to file a proposed rule change with the Commission for the listing and trading of each new series of Managed Fund Shares, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to codify certain rules within Rule 14.11(i) that would generally eliminate the need for separate proposed rule changes. The Exchange believes that this would facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of Managed Fund Shares that have investment portfolios that are similar to investment portfolios for Index Fund Shares, which have been approved for listing and trading, thereby creating greater efficiencies in the listing process for the Exchange and the Commission. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the standards proposed for Managed Fund Share portfolios that include equity securities, Derivative Securities Products, and Linked Securities are based in large part on the existing equity security standards applicable to Index Fund Shares based on either a U.S. index or portfolio or an international or global index or portfolio found in Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i)
With respect to the proposed addition to the criteria of Rule 14.11(i)(3)(B) to provide that the Web site for each series of Managed Fund Shares shall disclose certain information regarding the Disclosed Portfolio, to the extent applicable, the Exchange notes that proposed rule changes approved by the Commission for previously-listed series of Managed Fund Shares have similarly included disclosure requirements with respect to each portfolio holding, as applicable to the type of holding.
With respect to the proposed amendment to the continued listing requirement in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(B)(i) to require dissemination of an Intraday Indicative Value at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours, such requirement conforms to the requirement applicable to the dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value for Index Fund Shares in Rule 14.11(c)(3)(C) and 14.11(c)(6)(A). In addition, such dissemination is consistent with representations made in proposed rule changes for issues of Managed Fund Shares previously approved by the Commission.
As proposed, pursuant to Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii)(c) an underlying portfolio (excluding exempted securities) that includes fixed income securities must include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers, provided, however, that there would be no minimum number of non-affiliated issuers required for fixed income securities if at least 70% of the weight of the portfolio consists of equity securities. The Exchange notes that when evaluated in conjunction with proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii)(b), the proposed rule is consistent with current Rules 14.11(c)(4)(B)(i)(d) and (e) in that it provides for a maximum weighting of a fixed income security in the fixed income portion of the portfolio of a fund that is comparable to the existing rules applicable to Index Fund Shares based on fixed income indexes.
With respect to the proposed amendment to Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iii) relating to cash and cash equivalents, while there is no limitation on the amount of cash and cash equivalents can make up of the portfolio, such instruments are short-term, highly liquid, and of high credit quality, making them less susceptible than other asset classes both to price manipulation and volatility. Further, the requirement is consistent with representations made in proposed rule changes for issues of Managed Fund Shares previously approved by the Commission.
With respect to proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv) relating to listed derivatives, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate that there be no limit to the percentage of a portfolio invested in such holdings, provided that, in the aggregate, at least 90% of the weight of such holdings invested in futures and exchange-traded options would consist of futures and options whose principal market is a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange has a CSSA. Such a requirement would facilitate information sharing among market participants trading shares of a series of Managed Fund Shares as well as futures and options that such series may hold. Such limitation would not apply to listed swaps because swaps are listed on SEFs, the majority of which are not members of ISG. Thus, if the limitation applied to swaps, there would effectively be a cap of 10% of the
With respect to proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(v) relating to OTC derivatives, the Exchange believes that the limitation to 20% of a fund's assets would assure that, to the extent that a fund holds derivatives, the preponderance of fund investments would not be in derivatives that are not listed and centrally cleared. The Exchange believes that such a limitation is sufficient to mitigate the risks associated with price manipulation because a 20% cap on OTC derivatives will ensure that any series of Managed Fund Shares will be sufficiently broad-based in scope to minimize potential manipulation associated with OTC derivatives because the remaining 80% of the portfolio will consist of instruments subject to numerous restrictions designed to prevent manipulation, including equity securities (which, as proposed, would be subject to market cap, trading volume, and diversity requirements, among others), fixed income securities (which, as proposed, would be subject to principal amount outstanding, diversity, and issuer requirements, among others), cash and cash equivalents (which, as proposed, would be limited to short-term, highly liquid, and high credit quality instruments), and/or listed derivatives (which, as proposed, 90% of the weight of futures and options will be futures and options whose principal market is a member of ISG). With respect to proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(vi) related to a fund's use of listed or OTC derivatives to gain exposure to individual equities and/or fixed income securities, or to indexes of equities and/or indexes of fixed income securities, the Exchange notes that such exposure would be required to meet the numerical and other criteria set forth in proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i) and 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii), respectively.
Quotation and other market information relating to listed futures and options is available from the exchanges listing such instruments as well as from market data vendors. With respect to centrally-cleared swaps
With respect to security-based swaps regulated by the Commission, the Commission has adopted Regulation SBSR under the Act implementing requirements for regulatory reporting and public dissemination of security-based swap transactions set forth in Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. Regulation SBSR provides for the reporting of security-based swap information to registered security-based swap data repositories (“Registered SDRs”) or the Commission, and the public dissemination of security-based swap transaction, volume, and pricing information by Registered SDRs.
Price information relating to forwards and OTC options will be available from major market data vendors.
The Exchange notes that a fund's investments in derivative instruments would be subject to limits on leverage imposed by the 1940 Act. Section 18(f) of the 1940 Act and related Commission guidance limit the amount of leverage an investment company can obtain. A fund's investments would be consistent with its investment objective and would not be used to enhance leverage. To limit the potential risk associated with a fund's use of derivatives, a fund will segregate or “earmark” assets determined to be liquid by a fund in accordance with the 1940 Act (or, as permitted by applicable regulation, enter into certain offsetting positions) to cover its obligations under derivative instruments. A fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The proposed rule change is also designed to protect investors and the public interest because Managed Fund Shares listed and traded pursuant to Rule 14.11(i), including pursuant to the proposed new portfolio standards, would continue to be subject to the full panoply of Exchange rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of equity securities on the Exchange, as further described in the Approval Order.
The proposed rule change is also designed to protect investors and the public interest as well as to promote just and equitable principles of trade in that any Non-U.S. Component Stocks will each meet the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis: (1) Have a minimum market value of at least $100 million; (2) have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months; (3) most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stock shall not exceed 25% of the equity weight of the
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because the Managed Fund Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Rule 14.11(i). The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Managed Fund Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in Managed Fund Shares with other markets that are members of the ISG, including all U.S. securities exchanges and futures exchanges on which the components are traded. In addition, the Exchange or FINRA on behalf of the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in Managed Fund Shares from other markets that are members of the ISG, including all U.S. securities exchanges and futures exchanges on which the components are traded, or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change would fulfill the intended objective of Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act by allowing Managed Fund Shares that satisfy the proposed listing standards to be listed and traded without separate Commission approval. However, as proposed, the Exchange would continue to file separate proposed rule changes before the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares that do not satisfy the additional criteria described above.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of Managed Fund Shares and result in a significantly more efficient process surrounding the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares, which will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. The Exchange believes that this would reduce the time frame for bringing Managed Fund Shares to market, thereby reducing the burdens on issuers and other market participants and promoting competition. In turn, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would make the process for listing Managed Fund Shares more competitive by applying uniform listing standards with respect to Managed Fund Shares.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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.
On July 23, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) published a notice requesting comment on a proposal to grant a conditional exemption to broker-dealers, subject to certain conditions, from the immediate confirmation requirements of Rule 10b-10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) for transactions effected in shares of institutional prime money market funds.
Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a) generally requires broker-dealers to provide customers with specified information relating to their securities transactions at or before the completion of the transactions.
Given that share prices of institutional prime money market funds likely will fluctuate under the Commission's amendments to Investment Company Act Rule 2a-7,
As adopted, government and retail money market funds are exempt from the Investment Company Act Rule 2a-7(c)(1)(ii) floating NAV requirement, and therefore, will continue to maintain a stable NAV.
To address the potential burdens created by such a requirement, the Commission published the Notice proposing to exempt broker-dealers from the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a) when effecting transactions in money market funds operating in accordance with Investment Company Act Rule 2a-7(c)(1)(ii), for or with the account of a customer, where: (i) no sales load is deducted upon the purchase or redemption of shares in the money market fund, (ii) the broker-dealer complies with the provisions of Rule 10b-10(b)(2) and Rule 10b-10(b)(3) that are applicable to money market funds that attempt to maintain a stable NAV referenced in Rule 10b-10(b)(1),
The Commission received two comments on the Notice, both expressing general support for the proposal.
The Commission finds that it is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors to allow broker-dealers, subject to certain conditions, to provide transaction information to investors in any money market fund operating pursuant to Rule 2a-7(c)(1)(ii) on a monthly basis in lieu of providing immediate confirmations as required under Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a). In making this finding, the Commission considered several factors, as discussed more fully below as well as in the Notice.
First, the attributes of institutional prime money market funds mitigate the need for the protections intended by confirmation delivery under Rule 10b-10(a).
Second, customers that need daily pricing information may obtain it through means other than confirmation statements.
Third, absent an exemption, broker-dealers are likely to incur significant costs associated with providing immediate, rather than monthly, confirmations for transactions in shares of institutional prime money market funds. Such costs, in turn, would likely be passed along to investors.
However, given that there likely will be some price fluctuations in institutional prime money market funds, the Commission believes that it is also necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to condition the exemption on a broker-dealer providing immediate confirmations upon a customer's request. Accordingly, to be eligible for the exemption, a broker-dealer must (1) provide an initial written notification to the customer of its ability to request delivery of immediate confirmations consistent with the written notification requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a), and (2) not receive any such request from the customer.
In light of the above, and in accordance with Exchange Act Section 36
This Order contains “collection of information requirements” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”). The Commission has submitted the information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507 and 5 CFR 1320.10. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid control number. The title of this collection is “Money Market Fund Reform/Exchange Act Rule
In addition to the conditions typically applicable under Rule 10b-10(b),
The notification condition in this Order will alert customers of their ability to request immediate confirmations, consistent with the terms of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a). The notification condition allows customers to obtain immediate confirmations should they choose to request them.
As stated in the Money Market Fund Reform Adopting Release, based on FOCUS report data as of December 31, 2013, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 320 broker-dealers that clear customer transactions or carry customer funds and securities.
The Commission estimates that the initial one-time burden required to implement, modify, or reprogram existing systems to generate and transmit the required notifications to customers would be 36 hours for each of the 320 broker-dealers that clear customer transactions or carry customer funds and securities.
The collection of information results from a condition of this Order and will be required for a broker-dealer to be exempt from the immediate confirmation requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a).
The notification would be provided by a broker-dealer directly to a customer and thus would not be kept confidential.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Commission solicits comment to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
3. Determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Persons submitting comments on the collection of information requirements should direct them to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should also send a copy of their comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File No. S7-08-14. Requests for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard to this collection of information should be in writing, with reference to File No. S7-08-14, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Records Management, Office of Filings and Information Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. As OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information between 30 and 60 days after publication in the
By the Commission.
On September 30, 2015, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As part of ICC's end-of-day price discovery process, ICC Clearing Participants (“CPs”) are required to submit end-of-day prices for specific instruments related to their open interest at ICC, in accordance with Rule 404(b) and ICC Procedures. Failure of a CP to provide submissions required by ICC pursuant to Rule 404(b) and ICC Procedures constitute a Missed Submission. In order to provide incentive against Missed Submissions, ICC has adopted a summary assessment approach described in Rule 702(e) and Schedule 702 of the Rules.
Currently, under Rule 702(e)(ii)(2), a CP may be eligible for a once-in-a-lifetime conditional waiver from such assessments if one or more Missed Submissions are the first instance(s) of a Missed Submission for the type of instrument (index or single name) and the CP provides adequate explanation of the cause and plans for remedial actions.
Given the increased automation of price submissions, ICC recognizes that there may be circumstances, due to technological failures, which may result in Missed Submissions. ICC also notes that, due to the significant length of time since the inception of the end-of-day process, many CPs have utilized their once-in-a-lifetime waiver. As such, ICC believes it is reasonable to provide, under limited circumstances, a conditional once-a-year waiver for such Missed Submissions caused by technical failures, as described below. ICC believes that such Rule changes will not affect the integrity and effectiveness of the end-of-day price discovery process. ICC believes such Rule changes provide a valuable and practical balance between the technicalities of the price discovery process and appropriate penalization for Missed Submissions.
The proposed Rule text provides for the replacement of ICC's current once-in-a-lifetime waiver for Missed Submissions with a conditional once-a-year waiver for Missed Submissions caused by technical failures. Under revised Rule 702(e)(ii)(2), a CP would be eligible for one waiver per year for single name Missed Submissions, and one waiver per year for index Missed Submissions. A CP may request such wavier(s) be applied against all Missed Submissions for a given instrument class on a given day. CPs would be required to provide documentation with a waiver request, explaining that the root-cause of the Missed Submission was a technology issue and including a remediation plan to fix the cause of the Missed Submission. ICC states that it would review and evaluate the waiver request and accept unless it had legitimate concerns that the root-cause of the Missed Submission had not been adequately identified, was not due to a technical issue, and/or would not be corrected by the provided remediation plan. ICC would maintain its current ability to provide waivers for Missed Submissions deemed to be due to extraordinary circumstances outside of a CP's control, as set forth in Rule 702(e)(ii)(3). Pending regulatory approval, ICC plans to implement these changes on January 1, 2016, and apply the once-a-year waiver to the 2016 calendar year, and each calendar year going forward. ICC represents that there are no changes to ICC policies and procedures as a result of the Rule changes.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
Additionally, the Commission believes that allowing for a once-per-year conditional waiver for technical failures in the summary assessment process for Missed Submissions is designed to ensure that CPs are
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to adopt FINRA Rule 6191 to implement the quoting and trading requirements of the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Plan”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively “Participants”), filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act
The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small-capitalization companies. Each Participant is required to comply with, and to enforce compliance by its members, as applicable, with the provisions of the Plan. As is described more fully below, the proposed rules would require members to comply with the applicable quoting and trading increments for Pilot Securities.
The Pilot Securities will include stocks of companies with $3 billion or less in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least $2.00 for every trading day. The Pilot will consist of a Control Group of approximately 1400 Pilot Securities and three test groups with 400 Pilot Securities in each selected by a stratified sampling.
The Plan requires FINRA to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan.
Proposed Rule 6191(a) (Compliance with Quoting and Trading Restrictions) (the “Rule”) sets forth the requirements for FINRA and FINRA members in meeting their quoting and trading obligations, as applicable, under the Plan. Rule 6191(a)(1) will require members to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the applicable quoting and trading requirements of the Plan. Rule 6191(a)(2) provides that FINRA systems will not display quotations in violation of the Plan and this Rule.
Proposed Rule 6191(a)(3) clarifies the treatment of Pilot Securities that drop below $1.00 during the Pilot Period. In particular, Rule 6191(a)(3) provides that, if the price of a Pilot Security drops below $1.00 during regular trading hours on any trading day, such Pilot Security will continue to be a Pilot Security subject to the Plan. However, if the Closing Price of a Pilot Security on any given trading day is below $1.00, such Pilot Security will be moved out of its Pilot Test Group into the Control Group, and may then be quoted and traded at any price increment that is currently permitted for the remainder of the Pilot Period. Rule 6191(a)(3) also provides that, notwithstanding anything contained within these rules to the contrary, Pilot Securities (whether in the Control Group or any Pilot Test Group) will continue to be subject to the data collection requirements of the Plan at all times during the Pilot Period and for the six-month period following the end of the Pilot Period.
In approving the Plan, the Commission noted that the Participants had proposed additional selection criteria to minimize the likelihood that securities that trade with a share price of $1.00 or less would be included in the Pilot, and stated that, once established, the universe of Pilot Securities should stay as consistent as possible so that the analysis and data can be accurate throughout the Pilot Period.
Proposed Rule 6191(a)(4) sets forth the applicable limitations for securities in Test Group One. Consistent with the language of the Plan, Rule 6191(a)(4) provides that no member may display, rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or indications of interest in any Pilot Security in Test Group One in increments other than $0.05. However, orders priced to execute at the midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer (“NBBO”) or best protected bid and best protected offer (“PBBO”)
Proposed Rule 6191(a)(5) sets forth the applicable quoting and trading requirements for securities in Test Group Two. This provision states that no member may display, rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or indications of interest in any Pilot Security in Test Group Two in increments other than $0.05. However, orders priced to execute at the midpoint of the NBBO or PBBO and orders entered in a Participant-operated retail liquidity program may be ranked and accepted in increments of less than $0.05.
Proposed Rule 6191(a)(5) also sets forth the applicable trading restrictions for Test Group Two securities. Absent any of the exceptions listed in the Rule, no member may execute orders in any Pilot Security in Test Group Two in price increments other than $0.05. The $0.05 trading increment will apply to all trades, including Brokered Cross Trades.
Consistent with the language of the Plan, the proposed Rule provides that Pilot Securities in Test Group Two may trade in increments of less than $0.05 under the following circumstances: (1) Trading may occur at the midpoint between the NBBO or the PBBO; (2) Retail Investor Orders may be provided with price improvement that is at least $0.005 better than the PBBO; and (3) Negotiated Trades may trade in increments of less than $0.05.
Proposed Rule 6191(a)(6) sets forth the applicable quoting and trading restrictions for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. The proposed Rule provides that no member may display, rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-displayable bids or
Proposed Rule 6191(a)(6)(C) sets forth the exceptions pursuant to which Pilot Securities in Test Group Three may trade in increments of less than $0.05. First, trading may occur at the midpoint between the NBBO or PBBO. Second, Retail Investor Orders may be provided with price improvement that is at least $0.005 better than the PBBO. Third, Negotiated Trades may trade in increments of less than $0.05.
Proposed Rule 6191(a)(6)(D) sets forth the “Trade-at Prohibition,” which is the prohibition against executions by a member that operates a Trading Center of a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or the execution of a buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer during regular trading hours, absent any of the exceptions set forth in Rule 6191(a)(6)(D). Consistent with the Plan, the proposed Rule reiterates that a member that operates a Trading Center that is displaying a quotation, via either a processor or an SRO quotation feed, that is at the price of a Protected Bid or Protected Offer is permitted to execute orders at that level, but only up to the amount of its displayed size. A member that operates a Trading Center that was not displaying a quotation that is the same price as a Protected Quotation, via either a processor or an SRO quotation feed, is prohibited from price-matching protected quotations unless an exception applies.
Consistent with the Plan, proposed Rule 6191(a)(6)(D) also sets forth the exceptions to the Trade-at prohibition, pursuant to which a member that operates a Trading Center may execute a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or execute a buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer. The first exception to the Trade-at Prohibition is the “display exception,” which allows a trade to occur at the price of the Protected Quotation, up to the Trading Center's full displayed size, if the order “is executed by a trading center that is displaying a quotation.”
In Rule 6191(a)(6)(D), FINRA proposes that a member that utilizes the independent aggregation unit concept may satisfy the display exception only if the same independent aggregation unit that displays interest via either a processor or an SRO Quotation Feed also executes an order in reliance upon this exception. The rule provides that “independent aggregation unit” has the same meaning as provided under Rule 200(f) of SEC Regulation SHO.
As initially proposed by the Participants, the Plan contained an additional condition to the display exception, which would have required that, where the quotation is displayed through a national securities exchange, the execution at the size of the order must occur against the displayed size on that national securities exchange; and where the quotation is displayed through the Alternative Display Facility or another facility approved by the Commission that does not provide execution functionality, the execution at the size of the order must occur against the displayed size in accordance with the rules of the Alternative Display Facility of such approved facility (“venue limitation”).
In approving the Plan, the Commission modified the Trade-At Prohibition to remove the venue limitation.
Consistent with Plan and the SEC's determination to remove the venue limitation, FINRA is making clear that the display exception applies to trades executed by a Trading Center otherwise than on an exchange where the Trading Center has previously displayed a quotation in either an agency, riskless principal or principal capacity. As part of the display exception, FINRA also proposes that a Trading Center that is displaying a quotation as agent or riskless principal may only execute as agent or riskless principal, while a Trading Center displaying a quotation as principal (excluding riskless principal) may execute either as principal or agent or riskless principal. FINRA believes this is consistent with the Plan and the objective of the Trade-at Prohibition, which is to promote the display of liquidity and generally to prevent any Trading Center that is not quoting from price-matching Protected Quotations. Providing that a Trading Center may not execute on a proprietary basis in reliance on a quotation representing customer interest (whether agency or riskless principal) ensures that the Trading Center cannot avoid compliance with the Trade-at Prohibition by trading on a proprietary basis in reliance on a quotation that does not represent such Trading Center's own interest. Where a Trading Center is displaying a quotation at the same price as a Protected Quotation in a proprietary capacity, transactions in any capacity at the price and up to the size of such Trading Center's displayed quotation would be permissible.
The proposal also excepts Block Size orders
Consistent with the Plan, the proposal also excepts an order that is a Retail Investor Order that is executed with at least $0.005 price improvement.
The exceptions set forth in proposed Rule 6191(a)(6)(D)(iii) d. through l. are based on the exceptions found in Rule 611 of Regulation NMS.
The exception proposed in subparagraph l. applies to a “stopped order.” Both the Plan and Rule 6191(a)(6) define a “stopped order” as an order that is executed by a Trading Center which, at the time of order receipt, the Trading Center had guaranteed an execution at no worse than a specified price, where (1) the stopped order was for the account of a customer; (2) the customer agreed to the specified price on an order-by-order basis; and (3) the price of the Trade-at transaction was, for a stopped buy order, equal to the National Best Bid in the Pilot Security at the time of execution or, for a stopped sell order, equal to the National Best Offer in the Pilot Security at the time of execution.
Consistent with the Plan, the final exception to the Trade-At Prohibition and its accompanying supplementary material applies to an order that is for a fractional share of a Pilot Security. The supplementary material provides that such fractional share orders may not be the result of breaking an order for one or more whole shares of a Pilot Security into orders for fractional shares or that otherwise were effected to evade the requirements of the Trade-at Prohibition or any other provisions of the Plan. In approving the Plan, the Commission noted that this exception was appropriate, as there could be potential difficulty in the routing and executing of fractional shares.
Rule 6191(a)(7) addresses the operation of certain exceptions to the Pilot. Rule 6191(a)(7)(A) relates to the Retail Investor Order exception. Consistent with the Plan, the proposed Rule defines a “Retail Investor Order” as an order that originates from a natural person, provided that, prior to submission, no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology.
Proposed Rule 6191(a)(7)(A) addresses the execution of Retail Investor Orders other than on a national securities exchange. Given that the definition of a “Retail Investor Order” in the Plan includes that the order is an agency or riskless principal order, orders received directly from a customer, without an accompanying capacity, and executed by the receiving Trading Center would not currently fall within the scope of the Plan's definition of “Retail Investor Order” and the corresponding exceptions from Test Groups Two and Three. FINRA is therefore proposing that any member that operates a Trading Center may execute against an order received directly from a natural person that did not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology. This proposed provision generally tracks the Plan's definition of “Retail Investor Order” while allowing a member to execute against orders received directly from retail customers.
The Plan also provides that the Trading Center executing a Retail Investor Order must sign an attestation that substantially all orders to be executed as Retail Investor Orders will qualify as such under the Plan. Rule 6191(a)(7)(A) provides that any member for which FINRA is the Designated Examining Authority (DEA) that operates a Trading Center and executes Retail Investor Orders must submit a signed attestation to FINRA that substantially all orders to be executed as Retail Investor Orders will qualify as such under this Rule.
Finally, FINRA is proposing 6191(a)(7)(B) to clarify how members should report trades when utilizing one of the enumerated exceptions to the Trade-at requirement. Rule 6191(a)(7)(B) provides that a member that is relying on an exception to the Trade-at prohibition for a transaction otherwise than on a national securities exchange must include all applicable modifiers in trade reports pursuant to Rules 6282, 6380A and 6380B. This provision will facilitate the accurate and complete reporting of transactions in Pilot Securities by member.
If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, the proposed rule change will become operative on October 3, 2016.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it implements and clarifies the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist FINRA and members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Pilot was an appropriate, data-driven test that was designed to evaluate the impact of a wider tick size on trading, liquidity, and the market quality of securities of smaller capitalization companies, and was therefore in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that this proposal implements and clarifies the Plan and applies specific requirements to members, FINRA believes that this proposal is in furtherance of the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the SEC, and is therefore consistent with the Act.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist FINRA in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. FINRA also notes that the quoting and trading requirements of the Plan will apply equally to all firms that trade Pilot Securities.
As noted above, the Plan directs FINRA to establish rules and procedures for itself and member firms necessary in meeting their obligations under the Plan. The rules and procedures proposed here should be reasonably designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small-capitalization companies.
The rule, as proposed here, essentially codifies the Plan as approved by the Commission. FINRA is proposing rules relating to the operation of the Plan, including provisions intended to modify the obligations and prohibitions of the Plan market participants in a manner that is consistent with the stated objectives of the Plan.
First, as discussed above, in Rule 6191(a)(6)(D), FINRA proposes to permit that a member that operates a Trading Center and chooses to use aggregation units may rely upon the display exception only with respect to a transaction executed at the price of a Protected Quotation if the order is executed within the same independent aggregation unit that displayed a quotation that is equal in price to the Protected Quotation.
Second, as part of the display exception, FINRA also proposes to provide that a Trading Center that is displaying a quotation as agent or riskless principal may only execute as agent or riskless principal, while a Trading Center displaying a quotation as principal (excluding riskless principal) may execute either as principal or agent or riskless principal.
Third, under proposed Rule 6191(a)(7)(A), FINRA is proposing that any member that operates a Trading Center may execute against an order received directly from a natural person that did not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology and continue to qualify for the Retail Investor Order exception.
The baseline used by FINRA to evaluate the impact of the proposed rule change is the regulatory framework under the Plan, specifically the Control Group consisting of securities that will be quoted and traded at the currently permissible increments. An additional baseline considered corresponds to the current regulatory framework, prior to the implementation of the Plan. These two baselines serve as the primary points of comparison for assessing economic impacts, including the incremental benefits and costs of the proposed rule.
Trading Centers currently can quote in the common stock of small and middle-capitalization companies at the minimum increment permissible by the SEC of $0.01. In the Approval Order, the SEC identified concerns with decimalization, particularly with respect to the market quality for securities of small and middle-sized capitalization companies, such as the potential for reduced incentives to underwriters, limited sell-side research on these companies, and less market-making in these securities.
Under the Plan, all market participants who are active in Pilot Securities will quote and trade securities in the Pilot Test Groups in the manner prescribed by the Plan. The conditions for each Test Group are discussed above. All market participants that will participate in the Pilot by virtue of their activity in Pilot Securities will have established the functionality within their systems to trade and quote at the permissible increments, as well as update the set of securities in each Test Group on a daily basis.
The analysis of economic impacts focuses on the instances where the proposed rule modifies requirements to the Plan as adopted.
As noted above, proposed Rule 6191(a)(6)(D) would limit the ability of a Trading Center operated by a member that chooses to use independent aggregation units to avail itself of the display exception only with respect to a transaction executed at the price of a Protected Quotation if the order is executed within the same independent aggregation unit that displayed the Protected Quotation. This clarification would enhance the incentives of any independent aggregation unit to provide liquidity under the Plan.
In its absence, all independent aggregation units of the same trading center could conceivably take advantage of the display exception when any one unit were to post a quotation that meets the exception, in essence creating an opportunity for related aggregation units to “free ride” on the eligible quotation. Thus, the proposal may promote displayed liquidity by aggregation units that are active in Pilot Securities in Test Group 3, which would be consistent with the objectives of the Pilot.
The second proposal requires that the Trading Center in taking advantage of a trade exception provided by the Plan, must act as agent or riskless principal if the quotation that provides the exception is an agency or riskless principal quotation. In its absence, a trading center could conceivably execute proprietary trades on its own behalf even when it is not providing the additional liquidity through a quotation
The third proposal extends the definition of Retail Investor Order to include any order received directly from a natural person that did not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology, without requiring that such order be an agency or riskless principal order.
In the absence of this change, many orders that are currently sent to Trading Centers that otherwise satisfy the Retail Order definition would not be eligible for the exceptions of the Plan in the OTC market solely due to the capacity (or lack thereof) of that order. Retail customers could avail themselves of the exemption by placing additional conditions on the order, but this might preclude some Trading Centers from being able to interact with these orders. Therefore, this may provide greater liquidity to Test Group Two and Three Pilot Securities.
Under the clarification proposed, independent aggregation units not displaying quotations are not covered by the exception. Members that operate Trading Centers that utilize multiple independent aggregation units may be disadvantaged compared to members that operate Trading Centers with a single independent aggregation unit, or members that do not utilize aggregation units. But this impact may be small, as there is no prohibition from multiple independent aggregation units providing quotations covered by the exceptions. Thus all are eligible to take advantage of the exceptions provide under the Plan.
Trading Centers would be limited in their capacity to transact under FINRA's proposed exception to this rule. Some orders that would be able to trade under the exception as set forth in the Plan would no longer be eligible. These orders may thus have a lower probability of execution and potentially worse execution quality, if executed. It is difficult to assess the extent to which this might occur prior to the Pilot, but the data collected by the Plan will permit an analysis of this potential impact.
To the extent that this clarification creates added competition by Trading Centers to provide executions under the exceptions of the Plan, some Trading Centers may lose order flow to trading centers that would not have been permitted to execute these trades but for the clarification. FINRA notes that others may gain from this increase in competition, so that the overall effect could be beneficial.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
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 Robert W. Errett, Deputy 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”)
FINRA is proposing to adopt FINRA Rule 6191 and amend Rule 7440 to implement the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (Plan).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively “Participants”), filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act
The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small-capitalization companies. Each Participant is required to comply, and to enforce compliance by its member organizations, as applicable, with the provisions of the Plan. As is described more fully below, the proposed rules would require member organizations to comply with the applicable data collection requirements of the Plan.
The Pilot will include stocks of companies with $3 billion or less in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least $2.00 for every trading day. The Pilot will consist of a control group of approximately 1400 Pilot Securities and three test groups with 400 Pilot Securities in each (selected by a stratified random sampling process).
In approving the Plan, the Commission noted that the Trading Center data reporting requirements would facilitate an analysis of the effects of the Pilot on liquidity (
The Plan contains requirements for collecting and transmitting data to the Commission and to the public. Specifically, Appendix B.I to the Plan (Market Quality Statistics) requires Trading Centers
Appendix B.II to the Plan (Market and Marketable Limit Order Data) requires Trading Centers to submit information relating to market orders and marketable limit orders, including the time of order receipt, order type, the order size, the National Best Bid and National Best Offer (“NBBO”) quoted price, the NBBO quoted depth, the average execution price-share-weighted average, and the average execution time-share-weighted average.
The Plan requires Appendix B.I and B.II data to be submitted by Participants that operate a Trading Center, and by members of the Participants that operate Trading Centers. The Plan provides that each Participant that is the Designated Examining Authority (“DEA”) for a member of Participant that operates a Trading Center shall collect such data in a pipe delimited format, beginning six months prior to the Pilot Period and ending six months after the end of the Pilot Period. The Plan also requires the Participant, operating as DEA, to transmit this information to the SEC within 30 calendar days following month end.
FINRA is therefore proposing Rule 6191(b) to set forth the requirements for the collection and transmission of data pursuant to Appendix B.I and B.II of the Plan. Proposed Rule 6191(b)(1) requires that a member that operates a Trading Center shall establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the data collection and transmission requirements of Items I and II to Appendix B of the Plan, and a member that is a Market Maker shall establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the data collection and transmission requirements of Item IV of Appendix B to the Plan and Item I of Appendix C of the Plan.
Rule 6191(b)(2) requires that a member that operates a Trading Center subject to the Plan and for which FINRA is the DEA shall collect and transmit to FINRA the data described in Items I and II of Appendix B of the Plan with respect to each Pre-Pilot Data Collection Security for the period beginning six months prior to the Pilot Period through the trading day immediately preceding the Pilot Period; and each Pilot Security for the period beginning on the first day of the Pilot Period through six months after the end of the Pilot Period.
Section IV of the Plan (Policies and Procedures) provides that each Participant that is the DEA of a member of a Participant operating a Trading Center is required to develop appropriate policies and procedures for collecting and reporting the data described in Items I and II of Appendix B, as applicable, to the DEA Participant. FINRA has determined that much of the data required by Appendix B.I and B.II to the Plan currently is reported to FINRA through the Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”). In the interest of increasing the efficiency of the data collection process and the consistency of that data to be collected under the Plan, FINRA proposes to use OATS as the vehicle through which Trading Centers must comply with their reporting obligations pursuant to Appendix B.I and B.II.
Accordingly, proposed Rule 6191(b)(2) provides that members that operate Trading Centers that are subject to the Plan, and for which FINRA serves as the DEA, shall meet the data collection and reporting requirements in Items I and II of Appendix B by reporting the necessary order information in Pilot Securities and Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities to OATS; however, because the current OATS reports do not contain all of the information required by Appendix B to the Plan, the proposed rule change adds four new fields to OATS to capture the necessary information for Pilot Securities and Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities.
• Whether the member is a Trading Center in either a Pilot Security or a Pre-Pilot Data Collection Security and, if the member is a participant on the Alternative Display Facility (“ADF”), the display size of the order;
• Whether the order is routable; and
• Whether the member is relying on the retail investor order exception with respect to the order.
As an initial matter, only those OATS Reporting Members that operate a Trading Center and for which FINRA is the DEA are required to make any changes to their OATS reporting. OATS Reporting Members that do not operate Trading Centers or that have another self-regulatory organization as DEA will be permitted to leave the new fields blank (
As described above, the proposed rule change adds new OATS fields to capture whether an order in a Pre-Pilot Data Collection Security or a Pilot Security received by an OATS Reporting Member that operates a Trading Center is routable and whether the member is relying on the retail investor order exception in the Plan with respect to the order. These additional fields are necessary so that OATS can capture the information required by Item II(n) and II(o) of Appendix B to the Plan. This information will be required on all OATS reports for new orders, including New Order Reports, Combined Order/Route Reports, Combined Order/Execution Reports, and Cancel/Replace Reports.
In addition to information on new orders, the proposed rule change requires OATS Reporting Members that operate Trading Centers and for which FINRA is the DEA to report executions in Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities and Pilot Securities when the order, or
To facilitate compliance with this provision, FINRA will identify in the
As set forth in Section VII of the Plan (Collection of Pilot Data), proposed Rule 6191(b)(2)(B) provides that FINRA shall transmit this data collected by Trading Centers required by Items I and II of Appendix B to the Plan, and collected pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(A), to the SEC in a pipe delimited format on a disaggregated basis by Trading Center within 30 calendar days following month end. FINRA also shall make such data publicly available on the FINRA Web site on a monthly basis at no charge and will not identify the Trading Center that generated the data.
Appendix B.IV (Daily Market Maker Participation Statistics) requires a Participant to collect data related to Market Maker participation from each Market Maker
Proposed Rule 6191(b)(3)(B) provides that FINRA shall transmit the data relating to Market Maker activity required by Item IV of Appendix B to the Plan, and collected pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(A) above, to the Participant operating the Trading Center on which such activity occurred in a pipe delimited format on a disaggregated basis by Market Maker during the Pre-Pilot and within 15 calendar days following month end during the Pilot Period.
As required by the Plan, proposed Rule 6191(b)(3)(C) provides that FINRA shall transmit the data relating to Market Maker activity conducted otherwise than on a national securities exchange required by Item IV of Appendix B to the Plan, and collected pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(A), to the SEC in a pipe delimited format, on a disaggregated basis by Trading Center, within 30 calendar days following month end. FINRA shall also make such data publicly available on the FINRA Web site on a monthly basis at no charge and will not identify the Trading Center that generated the data.
Appendix C.I (Market Maker Profitability) requires a Participant to collect data related to Market Maker profitability from each Market Maker for which it is the DEA. Specifically, the Participant is required to collect the total number of shares of orders executed by the Market Maker, the raw Market Maker realized trading profits, and the raw Market Maker unrealized trading profits. Data shall be collected for dates starting six months prior to the Pilot Period through six months after the end of the Pilot Period. This data shall be collected on a monthly basis, to be provided in a pipe delimited format to the Participant, as DEA, within 30 calendar days following month end. Appendix C.II (Aggregated Market Maker Profitability) requires the Participant, as DEA, to aggregate the Appendix C.I data, and to categorize this data by security as well as by the control group and each Test Group. That aggregated data shall contain information relating to total raw Market Maker realized trading profits, volume-weighted average of raw Market Maker realized trading profits, the total raw Market Maker unrealized trading profits, and the volume-weighted average of Market Maker unrealized trading profits.
FINRA is therefore proposing Rule 6191(b)(4) to set forth the requirements for the collection and transmission of data pursuant to Appendix C.I and of the Plan. Proposed Rule 6191(b)(4)(A) requires that a member that is a Market Maker, and for which FINRA is the DEA, shall collect and transmit to FINRA the data described in Item I of Appendix C to the Plan, as modified by Paragraph (b)(5) with respect to executions in Pilot Securities that have settled or reached settlement date that were executed on any Trading Center. The proposed rule also requires members to provide such data in a pipe delimited format by 12 p.m. EST on T+4 for (1) for executions during and outside of Regular Trading Hours in each Pre-Pilot Data Collection Security for the period beginning six months prior to the Pilot Period through the trading day immediately preceding the Pilot Period; and (2) for executions during and outside of Regular Trading Hours in each Pilot Security for the period beginning on the first day of the Pilot Period through six months after the end of the Pilot Period.
Proposed Rule 6191(b)(4)(B) provides that FINRA shall collect this data and, on a monthly basis, transmit such data,
FINRA also is proposing a rule setting forth the manner in which Market Maker participation and profitability will be calculated. Proposed Rule 6191(b)(5) provides that a member that is a Market Maker subject to the requirements of proposed Rule 6191(b)(3)(A) and (b)(4)(A) in a Pre-Pilot Data Collection Security or a Pilot Security, and for which FINRA is the DEA, shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of proposed Rule 6191(b)(3)(A) and (b)(4)(A), in addition to the requirements of Appendix B.IV and Item I of Appendix C, if such Market Maker submits to FINRA the specified data for any principal trade, not including riskless principal, in a Pre-Pilot Data Collection Security or a Pilot Security executed in furtherance of its status as a Market Maker on any Trading Center. The proposed rule requires Market Makers to submit (1) Ticker Symbol; (2) Trading Center where the trade was executed, or if not known, the destination where the order originally was routed for further handling and execution; (3) Time of execution; (4) Price; (5) Size; (6) Buy/sell; (7) for trades executed away from the Market Maker, a unique identifier, as specified by the Market Maker's DEA, that will allow the trade to be associated with the Trading Center where the trade was executed; and (8) for trades cancelled or corrected beyond T+3, whether the trade represents a cancellation or correction.
FINRA is also proposing, through Supplementary Material, to clarify other aspects of the data collection requirements.
Supplementary Material .03 requires that members populate a field to identify whether an order is affected by the bands in place pursuant to the National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility.
FINRA and the other Participants have determined that it is appropriate to create a new flag for reporting orders that are affected by the Limit-Up Limit-Down bands. Accordingly, a Trading Center shall report a value of “Y” when the ability of an order to execute has been affected by the Limit-Up Limit-Down bands in effect at the time of order receipt. A Trading Center shall report a value of “N” when the ability of an order to execute has not been affected by the Limit-Up Limit-Down bands in effect at the time of order receipt.
Supplementary Material .03 also requires, for dually-listed securities, that the Participant indicate whether the order was handled domestically, or routed to a foreign venue. Accordingly, the Participant will indicate, for purposes of Appendix B.I, whether the order was: (1) Fully executed domestically, or (2) fully or partially executed on a foreign market. For purposes of Appendix B.II, the Participant will classify all orders in dually-listed Pilot and Pre-Pilot Securities as: (1) Directed to a domestic venue for execution; (2) may only be directed to a foreign venue for execution; or (3) was fully or partially directed to a foreign venue at the discretion of the member. FINRA believes that this proposed flag will better identify orders in dually-listed securities, as such orders that were executed in foreign venues would not be subject to the Plan's quoting and trading requirements, and could otherwise compromise the integrity of the data.
Supplementary Material .04 relates to the time ranges specified in Appendix B.I.a(14), B.I.a(15), B.I.a(21) and B.I.a(22).
Supplementary Material .05 relates to the requirement in Appendix B.I.a(33) requiring the share-weighted average BBO Spread of the reporting exchange as part of the market quality statistics to be reported. FINRA and the other Participants have determined that this requirement should apply to both the reporting exchange and to a Trading Center that displays such quote on the ADF, and is proposing to make this clarification through Supplementary Material .05.
Supplementary Material .06 relates to the relevant measurement for purposes of Appendix B.I.a(31)-(33) reporting. Currently, the Plan states that this data shall be reported as of the time of order execution. FINRA and the other Participants believe that this information should more properly be captured at the time of order receipt, as evaluating share-weighted average prices at the time of order receipt is more consistent with the goal of observing the effect of the Pilot on the liquidity of Pilot Securities. FINRA is therefore proposing to make this change through Supplementary Material .06.
Supplementary Material .07 clarifies that, for purposes of Appendix B.I.a(33), only a Trading Center that is displaying in its own name as a Trading Center when executing an order shall enter a value in this field. FINRA believes that the Appendix B.I.a(33) reporting requirement is only relevant for a Trading Center that is a display venue and not Trading Centers that may display through other Trading Centers (such as a market maker displaying a quote on a national securities exchange).
Supplementary Material .08 addresses the status of not-held and auction orders for purposes of Appendix B.I reporting. Currently, Appendix B.I sets forth eight categories of orders, including market orders, marketable limit orders, and inside-the-quote resting limit orders, for which daily market quality statistics must be reported. Currently, Appendix B.I does not provide a category for not held orders, clean cross orders, auction orders, or orders received when the NBBO is crossed. FINRA and the other Participants have determined that it is appropriate to include separate categories both not held orders and auction orders for purposes of Appendix B reporting. FINRA is therefore proposing Supplementary Material .07 to provide that not held orders shall be included as an order type for purposes of Appendix B reporting, and shall be assigned the number (18). Clean cross orders shall be included as an order type for purposes of Appendix B reporting, and shall be assigned the number (19); auction orders shall be included an as order type for purposes of Appendix B reporting, and shall be assigned the number (20); and orders that cannot be otherwise be classified, including, for example, orders received when the NBBO is crossed shall be included as an order type for purposes of Appendix B reporting, and shall be assigned the number (21). All of these orders already are included in the scope of Appendix B; however, without this proposed change, these order types would be categorized with other orders, such as regular held orders, that should be able to be fully executed upon receipt, which would compromise the value of this data.
FINRA is proposing Supplementary Material .09 to clarify the scope of the Plan as it relates to members that only execute orders for limited purposes. Specifically, FINRA and the other Participants believe that a member that only executes orders otherwise than on a national securities exchange for the purpose of (1) correcting a bona fide error related to the execution of a customer order; (2) purchasing a security from a customer at a nominal price solely for purposes of liquidating the customer's position; or (3) completing the fractional share portion of an order
FINRA is proposing Supplementary Material .10 to clarify that, for purposes of the Plan, Trading Centers must begin the data collection required pursuant to Appendix B.I.a(1) through B.II.(y) to the Plan and Item I of Appendix C to the Plan on April 4, 2016. While FINRA will provide the information required by Appendix B and C to the Plan to the SEC during the Pre-Pilot period, the requirement that FINRA, as DEA, provide information to the SEC within 30 calendar days following month end and make such data publicly available on its Web site pursuant to Appendix B and C to the Plan shall commence as of the beginning of the Pilot Period.
FINRA is proposing Supplementary Material .11 to address the requirement in Appendix C.I(b) to the Plan that the calculation of raw Market Maker realized trading profits utilize a last in, first out (“LIFO”)-like method to determine which share prices shall be used in that calculation. FINRA and the other Participants believe that is more appropriate to utilize a methodology that yields LIFO-like results, rather than utilizing a LIFO-like method, and FINRA is therefore proposing Supplementary Material .11 to make this change.
FINRA is proposing Supplementary Material .12 to address the securities that will be used for data collection purposes prior to the commencement of the Pilot. FINRA and the other Participants have determined that it is appropriate to collect data for a group of securities that is larger, and using different quantitative thresholds, than the group of securities that will Pilot Securities. FINRA is therefore proposing Supplementary Material .12 to define “Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities” as the securities designated by the Participants for purposes of the data collection requirements described in Items I, II and IV of Appendix B and Item I of Appendix C to the Plan for the period beginning six months prior to the Pilot Period and ending on the trading day immediately preceding the Pilot Period. The Participants shall compile the list of Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities by selecting all NMS stocks with a market capitalization of $5 billion or less, a Consolidated Average Daily Volume (CADV) of 2 million shares or less and a closing price of $1 per share or more. The market capitalization and the closing price thresholds shall be applied to the last day of the Pre-Pilot measurement period, and the CADV threshold shall be applied to the duration of the Pre-Pilot measurement period. The Pre-Pilot measurement period shall be the three calendar months ending on the day when the Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities are selected. The Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities shall be selected thirty days prior to the commencement of the six-month Pre-Pilot Period. On the trading day that is the first trading day of the Pilot Period through six months after the end of the Pilot Period, the data collection requirements will become applicable to the Pilot Securities only. A Pilot Security will only be eligible to be included in a Test Group if it was a Pre-Pilot Security.
Finally, FINRA is proposing Supplementary Material .13, which states that the Rule shall be in effect during a pilot period to coincide with the pilot period for the Plan (including any extensions to the pilot period for the Plan).
If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, the proposed rule change will be effective upon Commission approval. The implementation date will be April 4, 2016.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it implements and clarifies the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist FINRA in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Pilot was an appropriate, data-driven test that was designed to evaluate the impact of a wider tick size on trading, liquidity, and the market quality of securities of smaller capitalization companies, and was therefore in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA believes that this proposal is in furtherance of the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the SEC, and is therefore consistent with the Act because the proposal implements and clarifies the requirements of the Plan and applies specific obligations to members in furtherance of compliance with the Plan.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist FINRA in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. FINRA notes that the data collection requirements for members that operate Trading Centers will apply equally to all such members, as will the data collection requirements for Market Makers.
FINRA estimates that there are approximately 250 members that operate Trading Centers, and for which FINRA is the DEA, that would be required to submit data pursuant to Appendix B.I and B.II. While the Plan imposes comprehensive data collection requirements on members that operate Trading Centers, FINRA notes that some of the data requirements are modeled upon Rule 605 data, and that it is leveraging existing OATS data and systems to assist firms in complying with their Appendix B.I and B.II reporting obligations. FINRA also estimates that there are approximately 100 members that qualify as Market Makers for which FINRA is the DEA. While the Plan imposes new reporting obligations on Market Makers, FINRA notes that some of the requested Market Maker profitability data may already be captured by members for internal purposes.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
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 Robert W. Errett, Deputy 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.
Department of State.
Notice.
A decision has been made, pursuant to the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act, to modify nonproliferation measures pursuant to this Act on a Russian foreign person.
Pamela K. Durham, Office of Missile, Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State, Telephone (202) 647-4930.
On September 2, 2015, the United States Government announced the imposition of measures including the following against Rosoboronexport (ROE) (Russia) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof: “No department or agency of the United States Government may procure or enter into any contract for the procurement of any goods, technology, or services from [Rosoboronexport (ROE) (Russia) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof], except to the extent that the Secretary of State otherwise may determine . . . .” (See 80 FR 53222, Public Notice 9251; and 80 FR 65844, Public Notice 9329).
The United States Government has decided to modify the measure described above against ROE and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof as follows. The measure described above shall not apply to subcontracts at any tier with ROE and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof made on behalf of the United States Government for goods, technology, and services for the maintenance, repair, overhaul, or sustainment of Mi-17 helicopters for the purpose of providing assistance to the security forces of Afghanistan, as well as for the purpose of combating terrorism and violent extremism globally.
Such subcontracts include the purchase of spare parts, supplies, and related services for these purposes. This modification applies retroactively as of the effective date of the sanctions, and will remain in place for two years from that date, except to the extent that the Secretary of State may otherwise determine.
This modification does not apply to any other measures imposed pursuant to the INKSNA and announced in Public Notice 9251 published on September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53222).
A meeting of the Department of State's Advisory Committee on International Law will take place on Thursday, December 10, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the George Washington University Law School, Michael K. Young Faculty Conference Center, 716 20th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC. Principal Deputy Legal Adviser Mary McLeod will chair the meeting, which will be open to the public up to the capacity of the conference room. It is anticipated that the agenda of the meeting will cover a range of current international legal topics, including the development of non-legally binding norms and instruments, the International Criminal Court and the “crime of aggression,” the upcoming ICRC Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions, and issues related to cross-border electronic data access.
Members of the public who wish to attend should contact the Office of the Legal Adviser by December 7 at
Department of State.
Notice.
The Secretary of State has decided to terminate sanctions imposed under the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-172) (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) (“ISA”), as amended, on Dettin S.p.A. (a.k.a. Dettin) on the basis that the company is no longer engaging in sanctionable activity described in section 5(a) of ISA, and that this person has provided reliable assurances that it will not knowingly engage in sanctionable activities in the future. Therefore, certain sanctions that were imposed on Dettin on August 29, 2014 are no longer in effect.
On general issues: Office of Sanctions Policy and Implementation, Department of State, Telephone: (202) 647-7489.
On August 29, 2014, the Secretary of State made a determination to impose certain sanctions on,
Pursuant to section 9(b)(2) of ISA and the authority delegated to the Secretary of State in the October 9, 2012 Memorandum to relevant agency heads, “Delegation of Certain Functions and Authorities Under the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012,” (“Delegation Memorandum”), the Secretary now has decided to terminate sanctions on Dettin on the basis that the company is no longer engaging in sanctionable activity described in section 5(a) of ISA, and that this person has provided reliable assurances that they will not knowingly engage in sanctionable activities in the future. The sanctions on Dettin, therefore, are no longer in effect.
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the Secretary of State in the Delegation Memorandum, relevant agencies and instrumentalities of the United States Government shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this notice.
The following constitutes a current, as of this date, list of persons on whom sanctions are imposed under ISA. The particular sanctions imposed on an individual person are identified in the relevant
The Office of Intergovernmental Affairs/Partnership and Engagement, DHS.
Notice of task assignment for the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Jeh Johnson, tasked his Homeland Security Advisory Council to establish a subcommittee entitled Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Subcommittee on September 28, 2015. The CVE Subcommittee will provide findings and recommendations to the Homeland Security Advisory Council on best practices sourced from the technology and philanthropic sectors, education and mental health professionals, and community leaders. This notice informs the public of the establishment of the CVE Subcommittee and is not a notice for solicitation.
Sarah E. Morgenthau, Executive Director of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs/Partnership and Engagement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security at (202) 447-3135 or
The Homeland Security Advisory Council provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, and actionable advice and recommendations for the consideration of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters related to homeland security. The Council is comprised of leaders of local law enforcement, first responders, state and local government, the private sector, and academia.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Jennifer Stein, who may be reached on 202-647-1211 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Section 203(a)(1)(B) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the President authority to, inter alia, prevent or prohibit any acquisition or transaction involving any property, in which a foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. See 50 U.S.C. 1701
In Executive Order 13047 of May 20, 1997, the President determined that the actions and policies of the Government of Burma, including its large-scale repression of the democratic opposition in Burma, constituted an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, declared a national emergency to deal with that threat, and prohibited new investment in Burma. In subsequent Executive Orders, the President modified the scope of the national emergency to address additional concerns with the actions and policies of the Government of Burma. In Executive Order 13448 of October 18, 2007, the President modified the emergency to address the continued repression of the democratic opposition in Burma, manifested in part through the commission of human rights abuses and pervasive public corruption. In Executive Order 13619 of July 11, 2012, the President further modified the emergency to address, inter alia, human rights abuses particularly in ethnic areas.
In response to several political reforms by the Government of Burma and pursuant to authority granted by IEEPA, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a general license (GL 17) on July 11, 2012 authorizing new investment in Burma, subject to certain restrictions and conditions.
In order to support the Department of State's efforts to assess the extent to which new U.S. investment authorized by GL 17 furthers U.S. foreign policy goals of, inter alia, improving human rights protections and facilitating political reform in Burma, GL 17 requires U.S. persons engaging in new investment in Burma to report to the Department of State information related to such investment, as laid out in the “Reporting Requirements on Responsible Investment in Burma,” (hereafter referred to as the “collection”). This collection is authorized by section 203(a)(2) of
The Department of State will collect the information requested via electronic submission.
It is the overarching policy goal of the U.S. Government to support political reform in Burma towards the establishment of a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic state that respects human rights and the rule of law. In the past, some foreign investment in Burma has been linked to human rights abuses, particularly in the area of natural resource development in ethnic minority regions. For example, some foreign investments have entailed acquisition and control of land in disputed ethnic minority territories exacerbating or contributing to both social unrest and armed conflict and leading to adverse community and/or environmental impacts. Increased military/security presence, particularly in disputed ethnic minority areas, to provide security for foreign investment projects is reported to have led to seizures of farm land, involuntary relocations, forced labor, torture, summary execution, and sexual violence.
The collection will help the Department of State, in consultation with other relevant government agencies, to evaluate whether easing the ban on investment by U.S. persons advances U.S. foreign policy goals to address the national emergency with respect to Burma. In addition, the Department of State will use the collection as a basis to conduct informed consultations with U.S. businesses to encourage and assist such businesses to develop robust policies and procedures to address any potential adverse human rights, worker rights, anti-corruption, environmental, or other impacts resulting from their investments and operations in Burma. The Department of State will use the collection of information about new investment with the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE) to track investment that involves MOGE and to identify investors with whom it may be beneficial to have targeted consultation on anti-corruption and human rights policies. The public, including civil society actors in Burma, may use publicly available information resulting from the collection to engage U.S. businesses on their responsible investment policies and procedures and to monitor the Burmese government's management of revenues from investment.
U.S. persons to whom this requirement applies will be required to submit a version of the report to the U.S. Government for public release, from which information considered in good faith to be exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4—
Burmese civil society groups, particularly those representing ethnic minority communities, have requested that the Department of State make public certain information obtained through the collection on investments purportedly made for the benefit of the Burmese people, as a means of holding their own government accountable. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi underscored the importance of transparency in in Bangkok in 2012, noting that she did not want “more investment to mean more possibilities for corruption.” This was among the most specific of the recommendations she made to the international community, stressing that “Transparency is very important if we are going to avoid problems in the future... So whatever investments, governmental agreements, whatever aid might be proposed, please make sure that it is transparent, that the people of Burma are in a position to understand what has been done, and how and for whom the benefits are intended.”
Therefore public release of portions of this collection is aimed at providing civil society this type of information to both ensure the transparency of U.S. investment in Burma and to encourage civil society to partner with their government and U.S. companies towards building responsible investment, which ultimately promotes U.S. foreign policy goals.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice and request for submissions.
The GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) announces that it has accepted for review a country practices petition regarding worker rights in Thailand submitted as part of the GSP Annual Review. This notice sets forth the schedule for public comments and a public hearing on the newly accepted petition on Thailand, as well as the ongoing GSP country practice reviews regarding Ecuador, Fiji, Georgia, Iraq, Niger, and Uzbekistan. This notice also announces the closure of the country practices review of worker rights in the Philippines without change to that country's GSP trade benefits.
Contact 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 regulations (15 CFR part 2007) provide the schedule of dates for conducting an annual review unless otherwise specified in a
January 4, 2016: Deadline for submission of pre-hearing briefs and requests to appear at the January 14-15, 2016 public hearing; submissions must be received by 5:00 p.m.
January 14-15, 2016: The GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) will convene a two-day public hearing on the country practices reviews cited above at 1724 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20508, beginning at 9:30 a.m. each day.
February 12, 2016: Deadline for submission of post-hearing briefs, which must be received by 5:00 p.m.
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,
The status of country practices reviews considered as part of the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Review is described in the list of Active and Closed Country Practices Reviews, which is available on the USTR GSP Web site at
The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), drawing on the advice of the TPSC, has accepted for review a country practices petition submitted as part of the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Review on Thailand regarding worker rights. In addition, the USTR, drawing on the advice of the TPSC, has decided to close the country practices review case
The GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC will hold a two-day hearing on Thursday, January 14 and Friday, January 15, 2016 beginning at 9:30 a.m. each day, for the newly accepted country practices petition regarding worker rights in Thailand, as well as to receive information regarding recent developments pertinent to the ongoing country practices reviews regarding worker rights and/or child labor in Fiji, Georgia, Iraq, Niger, and Uzbekistan, and arbitral awards in Ecuador.
The hearing will be held at 1724 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20508 and will be open to the public. A transcript of the hearing will be made available on
All interested parties wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit, following the “Requirements for Submissions” set out below, the name, address, telephone number, and email address, if available, of the witness(es) representing their organization by 5 p.m., January 4, 2016. Requests to present oral testimony must be accompanied by a written brief or summary statement, in English, and also must be received by 5 p.m., January 4, 2016. Oral testimony before the GSP Subcommittee will be limited to five-minute presentations that summarize or supplement information contained in briefs or statements submitted for the record. Post-hearing briefs or statements will be accepted if they conform with the regulations cited below and are submitted, in English, by 5 p.m., February 12, 2016. Parties not wishing to appear at the public hearing may submit pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs or comments by the aforementioned deadlines.
The GSP Subcommittee strongly encourages submission of all post-hearing briefs or statements by the February 12, 2016 deadline in order to receive timely consideration in the GSP Subcommittee's deliberation on the subject reviews. However, if there are new developments or information that parties wish to share with the GSP Subcommittee after this date, the regulations.gov dockets will remain open. Comments, letters, or other submissions related to the subject country practices reviews must be posted to the
All submissions in response to this notice must be submitted in English by the applicable deadlines set forth in this notice and conform to the GSP regulations set forth at 15 CFR part 2007, except as modified below. These regulations are available on the USTR Web site at
To ensure their timely and expeditious receipt and consideration, submissions in response to this notice must be submitted electronically via
Fiji (worker rights): USTR-2013-0012;
Ecuador (arbitral awards): USTR-2013-0013;
Georgia (worker rights): USTR-2013-0009;
Iraq (worker rights): USTR-2013-0004;
Niger (worker rights and child labor): USTR-2013-0005;
Thailand (worker rights): USTR-2015-0018;
Uzbekistan (worker rights): USTR-2013-0007.
Hand-delivered submissions will not be accepted.
To make a submission using
Each submitter will receive a submission tracking number upon completion of the submissions procedure at
An interested party requesting that information contained in a submission be treated as business confidential information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such. The submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page, and the submission should indicate, via brackets, the specific information that is confidential. Additionally, “Business Confidential” must be included in the “Type Comment” field. For any submission containing business confidential information, a non-confidential version must be submitted separately (
Submissions in response to this notice, except for information granted “business confidential” status under 15 CFR 2003.6, will be available for public viewing pursuant to 15 CFR 2007.6 at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before December 15, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0223 using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
Dan Ngo, (202) 267-4264. 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the ARAC.
The meeting will be held on December 17, 2015, starting at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Arrange oral presentations by December 10, 2015.
The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 10th floor, MacCracken Conference Room.
Renee Pocius, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267- 5093; fax (202) 267-5075; email
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a meeting of the ARAC taking place on December 17, 2015, at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
The Agenda includes:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed in the
For persons participating by telephone, please contact the person listed in the
The public must arrange by December 10, 2015 to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee by providing 25 copies to the Designated Federal Officer, or by bringing the copies to the meeting.
If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under the heading
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the Shawnee Parkway Project in Alexander, Pulaski, and Union Counties, Illinois.
Catherine A. Batey, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 3250 Executive Park Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703. Phone: (217) 492-4600. Jeffrey L. Keirn, PE., Deputy Director of Highways, Region Five Engineer, Illinois Department of Transportation, State Transportation Building, 2801 W. Murphysboro, P.O. Box 100, Carbondale, Illinois 62903, (618) 549-2171.
The FHWA, in cooperation with Illinois Department of Transportation, will prepare an EIS for the Shawnee Parkway project. The anticipated termini are the intersection of Illinois Route 3 with Illinois Route 146 and Interstate 57. The project study area includes portions of the following counties: Alexander, Pulaski, and Union in Illinois. The study area covers approximately 350 square miles.
The EIS for the Shawnee Parkway is being conducted to evaluate the need for improved transportation between the anticipated termini within the study area. The EIS will complete an analysis of transportation alternative(s) in the study area and evaluate environmental impacts based on field investigations, transportation studies, economic impact studies, and cost analysis.
Alternatives assessed will seek to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to resources in the project area. In accordance with IDOT policies, the project is being developed using Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) as a basis for a stakeholder outreach program. A scoping meeting will be held on December 3, 2015.
A range of alternatives will be developed and evaluated, including but not limited to: Taking no action, existing roadway improvements, and new roadways on new location. The Stakeholder Involvement Plan (SIP), which will satisfy the 23 U.S.C. Section 139 requirements for a coordination plan, will be developed to ensure that a full range of issues related to this proposed project are identified and addressed. The SIP provides meaningful opportunities for all stakeholders to participate in defining transportation issues and solutions for the study area.
Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS are invited from all interested parties and should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above or the following Web site:
A public hearing will be held after the Draft EIS is published and made available for public and agency review. Public notice will be given of the time and place of public meetings and hearings.
The EIS will conclude with a Record of Decision selecting either a no-build or a preferred alternative.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
We must receive your comments on or before January 25, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2015-0180 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle, Safety Standards, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2362; email
The primary mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. The Secretary of Transportation has delegated to FMCSA its responsibility under 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502 to prescribe regulations that ensure that CMVs are operated safely. As part of this mission, the Agency's Medical Programs Division works to ensure that CMV drivers engaged in interstate commerce are physically qualified and able to safely perform their work.
Information used to determine and certify driver medical fitness must be collected in order for our highways to be safe. FMCSA is the Federal government agency authorized to require the collection of this information and the authorizing regulations are located at 49 CFR 390-399. FMCSA is required by statute to establish standards for the physical qualifications of drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce for non-excepted industries [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3) and 31502(b)]. The regulations discussing this collection are outlined in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) at 49 CFR 390-399. FMCSRs at 49 CFR 391.41 set forth the physical qualification standards that interstate CMV drivers who are subject to part 391 must meet, with the exception of commercial driver's license/commercial learner's permit (CDL/CLP) drivers transporting migrant workers (who must meet the physical qualification standards set forth in 49 CFR 398.3). The FMCSRs covering driver physical qualification records are found at 49 CFR 391.43, which specify that a medical examination be performed on CMV drivers subject to part 391 who operate in interstate commerce. The results of the examination shall be recorded in accordance with the requirements set forth in that section.
49 CFR 391.41(12) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person does not use any drug or substance identified in 21 CFR 1308.11 Schedule I, an amphetamine, a narcotic, or other habit-forming drug and does not use any non-Schedule I drug or substance that is identified in the other Schedules in 21 part 1308 except when the use is prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner, as defined in § 382.107, who is familiar with the driver's medical history and has advised the driver that the substance will not adversely affect the driver's ability to safely operate a CMV.
In 2006, FMCSA's Medical Review Board (MRB) deliberated on the topic of the use of Schedule II medications. The MRB considered information provided in a 2006 FMCSA sponsored Evidence Report and a subsequent Medical Expert Panel (MEP) to examine the relationship between the licit use of a Schedule II drug and the risk for a motor vehicle crash. In 2013, FMCSA tasked the MRB with updating the opinions and recommendations of the 2006 Evidence Report and MEP.
On September 10, 2013, the MRB and Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) met jointly to hear presentations on the licit use of Schedule II medications and their regulation, and on U.S. Department of Transportation drug and alcohol testing protocols. Subsequently, the committees engaged in a discussion on the issue as it applies to CMV drivers. On September 11, 2013, the MRB discussed the issue in greater detail as its task to present a letter report to the Agency relating to CMV drivers and Schedule II medication use and to develop a form for MEs on the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (National Registry) to send to treating clinicians of CMV drivers to expound on the use of
1. Questionnaire should be titled
2. Questionnaire should request the following information:
a. Identifying name and date of birth of the CMV driver.
b. Introductory paragraph stating purpose of the CMV Driver Medication Report.
c. Statements of 391.41(b)(12) (Physical Qualifications of Drivers relating to driver use of scheduled substances) and The Driver's Role, as found in the Medical Examination Report form found at the end of
d. Name, state of licensure, signature, address and contact information of the prescribing healthcare provider, as well as the date the form was completed.
e. Name, signature, date, address and contact information of the certified ME.
3. Report should include the following information:
a. 1—List all medications and dosages that you have prescribed to the above named individual.
b. 2—List any other medications and dosages that you are aware have been prescribed to the above named individual by another treating healthcare provider.
c. 3—What medical conditions are being treated with these medications?
d. 4—It is my medical opinion that, considering the mental and physical requirements of operating a CMV and with awareness of a CMV driver's role (consistent with
The public interest in, and right to have, safe highways requires the assurance that drivers of CMVs can safely perform the increased physical and mental demands of their duties. FMCSA's medical standards provide this assurance by requiring drivers to be examined and medically certified as physically and mentally qualified to drive.
The purpose for collecting this information is to assist the ME in determining if the driver is medically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41 and to ensure that there are no disqualifying medical conditions that could adversely affect their safe driving ability or cause incapacitation constituting a risk to the public. 49 CFR 391.41(12) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person does not use any drug or substance identified in 21 CFR 1308.11 Schedule I, an amphetamine, a narcotic, or other habit-forming drug and does not use any non-Schedule I drug or substance that is identified in the other Schedules in 21 part 1308 except when the use is prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner, as defined in § 382.107, who is familiar with the driver's medical history and has advised the driver that the substance will not adversely affect the driver's ability to safely operate a CMV.
The use of this ICR is at the discretion of the ME to facilitate communication with treating healthcare professionals who are responsible for prescribing certain medications so that the ME fully understands the reasons the medications have been prescribed. This information will assist the ME in determining whether the underlying medical condition and the prescribed medication will impact the driver's safe operation of a CMV. Therefore, there is no required collection frequency.
The
The information collected from the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) hereby announces that it is seeking renewal of the following currently approved information collection activities. Before submitting these information collection requests (ICRs) for clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified below.
Comments must be received no later than January 25, 2016.
Submit written comments on any or all of the following proposed activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, Regulatory Safety Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB control number 2130-0525”. Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via facsimile to (202) 493-6216 or (202) 493-6497, or via email to Mr. Brogan at
Mr. Robert Brogan, Regulatory Safety Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days notice to the public for comment on information collection activities before seeking approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites interested respondents to comment on the following summary of proposed information collection activities regarding (i) whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (iii) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Below is a brief summary of the currently approved ICRs that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before December 28, 2015.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2015-0126. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel VAGO is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2015-0126 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Partial revocation of exemption.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board revokes the class exemption as it pertains to the trackage rights described in Docket No. FD 35965
The decision is effective on December 25, 2015. Petitions to stay must be filed by December 7, 2015. Petitions for reconsideration must be filed by December 15, 2015.
Send an original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35965 (Sub-No. 1) to: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill, PLC, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market St., Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Nathaniel Bawcombe (202) 245-0376. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Begeman, and Commissioner Miller.
Notice is hereby given that on November 12, 2015, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) approved the application of Central Federal Savings and Loan Association of Rolla, Rolla, Missouri, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection on the OCC Web site at the FOIA Electronic Reading Room
By the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
(A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following in or in relation to Burundi:
(B) to be a leader or official of:
(C) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of:
(D) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
The Department of State submits the following comprehensive listing of the statements which, as required by law, federal employees filed with their employing agencies during calendar year 2014 concerning gifts received from foreign government sources. The compilation includes reports of both tangible gifts and gifts of travel or travel expenses of more than minimal value, as defined by the statute. Also included are gifts received in previous years including one gift in 1985, one gift in 1995, one gift in 1997, one gift in 2001, two gifts in 2009, one gift in 2010, six gifts in 2011, five gifts in 2012, forty-nine gifts in 2013, and one gift with an unknown date. These latter gifts are being reported in 2014 as the Office of the Chief of Protocol, Department of State, did not receive the relevant information to include them in earlier reports.
Publication of this listing in the
| 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 |