| Page Range | 75785-75920 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 75882 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 75862 - Access to Confidential Business Information by Avanti Corporation | |
| 80 FR 75854 - Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 75894 - Notice of Renewal of the Charter of the Department of State's Advisory Committee on Private International Law | |
| 80 FR 75851 - Subzone 98A; Authorization of Limited Production Activity; Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (Passenger Motor Vehicles); Vance, Alabama | |
| 80 FR 75851 - Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Zone 46; Festo Corporation (Pneumatic/Electric Cylinders and Drives, Valve Manifolds, Electronic Control Systems); Mason, Ohio | |
| 80 FR 75851 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, in Part | |
| 80 FR 75864 - Information Collection; Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850 | |
| 80 FR 75858 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 75862 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 80 FR 75843 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement | |
| 80 FR 75897 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Resulting From the Termination of the National Emergency Declared in Executive Order 13348 | |
| 80 FR 75845 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Standard | |
| 80 FR 75879 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; South Dakota | |
| 80 FR 75878 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Montana | |
| 80 FR 75859 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 75812 - Significant New Use Rule on Certain Chemical Substances | |
| 80 FR 75856 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center | |
| 80 FR 75787 - Onions Grown in Certain Designated Counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon; Decreased Assessment Rate | |
| 80 FR 75857 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions | |
| 80 FR 75849 - Concurrence With OIE Risk Designations for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy | |
| 80 FR 75859 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
| 80 FR 75860 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 80 FR 75863 - Regular Board Meeting | |
| 80 FR 75881 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Evaluation of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Innovation Corps (I-Corps) Team Program, Survey of Comparable Projects' Principal Investigators; Proposed Information Collection Request | |
| 80 FR 75879 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Monthly Return of Human Trafficking Offenses Known to Law Enforcement | |
| 80 FR 75843 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Sculpins in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 80 FR 75850 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 80 FR 75896 - Application of Aerodynamics Incorporated for Certificate Authority | |
| 80 FR 75863 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 75863 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 75899 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Orders 13224 | |
| 80 FR 75863 - Notice of Termination; 10456 Waukegan Savings Bank, Waukegan, Illinois | |
| 80 FR 75896 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Request for Comment; Interagency Appraisal Complaint Form | |
| 80 FR 75847 - Outside Practice of Law; Fee-Generating Cases; Financial Eligibility; Private Attorney Involvement; Restrictions on Legal Assistance to Aliens; Timekeeping Requirement | |
| 80 FR 75870 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; The Declaration Process: Requests for Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA), Requests for Supplemental Federal Disaster Assistance, Appeals, and Requests for Cost Share Adjustments | |
| 80 FR 75871 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; FEMA Preparedness Grants: Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) | |
| 80 FR 75850 - Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 75785 - Human Resources Management Reporting Requirements | |
| 80 FR 75811 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Dubuque, IA | |
| 80 FR 75811 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Clinton, IA | |
| 80 FR 75881 - Alan T. Waterman Award Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 75788 - Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 75867 - Determination That OPHTHAINE (proparacaine hydrochloride) Solution and Other Drug Products Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
| 80 FR 75880 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Second Amendment to Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 80 FR 75894 - Notice and Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 75883 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Listing and Trading of Shares of the Market Vectors Dynamic Put Write ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 | |
| 80 FR 75889 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish Fees and Rebates Related to Order Exposure | |
| 80 FR 75868 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 75869 - National Institute on Drug Abuse Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 75869 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 75865 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 75880 - Notice of Availability of Funds and Funding Opportunity Announcement for H-1B TechHire Partnership Grants | |
| 80 FR 75873 - Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); Seventeenth Regular Meeting: Proposed Resolutions, Decisions, and Agenda Items Being Considered; Observer Information | |
| 80 FR 75899 - Loan Guaranty: Maximum Allowable Foreclosure Timeframes | |
| 80 FR 75817 - Medicaid Program; Mechanized Claims Processing and Information Retrieval Systems (90/10) | |
| 80 FR 75806 - Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Decommissioning Costs | |
| 80 FR 75895 - Central Maine & Quebec Railway US Inc.-Lease and Operate Exemption-State of Maine | |
| 80 FR 75791 - Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing: Defining “Chronically Homeless” | |
| 80 FR 75918 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-85; Small Entity Compliance Guide | |
| 80 FR 75918 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Technical Amendment | |
| 80 FR 75915 - Federal Acquisition Regulation: Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors | |
| 80 FR 75913 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Retention Periods | |
| 80 FR 75911 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Pilot Program for Enhancement of Contractor Employee Whistleblower Protections | |
| 80 FR 75908 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Updating Federal Contractor Reporting of Veterans' Employment | |
| 80 FR 75907 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Further Amendments to Equal Employment Opportunity | |
| 80 FR 75903 - Federal Acquisition Regulation: Prohibition on Contracting With Corporations With Delinquent Taxes or a Felony Conviction | |
| 80 FR 75901 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-85; Introduction | |
| 80 FR 75817 - NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing: Correction | |
| 80 FR 75866 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application From the Institute for Medical Quality for Initial CMS-Approval of Its Ambulatory Surgical Center Accreditation Program | |
| 80 FR 75845 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Attainment Demonstration for the Baltimore 8-Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule | |
| 80 FR 75872 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Energy Information Administration
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing final regulations that would remove regulatory requirements for Federal agencies to submit reports to OPM relating to their implementation of certain human resources management programs and authorities.
January 4, 2016.
Jan Chisolm-King, by telephone at (202) 606-1958 or by email at
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing final regulations to eliminate several reporting requirements for Federal agencies, in accordance with Executive Order 13583 of August 18, 2011, entitled “Establishing a Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce.” This Executive order includes a requirement that OPM:
This final rule removes or amends the provisions of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, listed below, which require agency reports to OPM that we have determined are no longer necessary.
• Section 337.305 requires agencies to send OPM a copy of the annual reports they are required by 5 U.S.C. 3319(d) to send to Congress in each of the first three years after establishing a category rating system. By a memorandum to agencies dated May 11, 2010, the President implemented certain items related to Federal hiring reform. In his memorandum, the President required agencies use a category rating system for evaluating and referring applicants by November 1, 2010. Because agencies not having a category system in place had to implement a system by November 1, 2010, the reporting requirement set forth at 5 U.S.C. 3319(d) was met by November 1, 2013, for many if not all of the agencies covered by the regulation. Therefore, because agencies have met their reporting requirement to Congress, the regulatory requirement to provide a copy of the report to OPM is no longer applicable.
• Section 576.104 concerns reports on agencies' use of Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIPs). Because OPM plans to obtain this data, when needed, from its central Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) database and also to ask agencies to address the effectiveness of VSIPs in their annual performance reports, we are removing paragraph (b). Currently, agencies are required to report on a quarterly basis, within 30 days of the end of each quarter, and a final report is due within 60 days of the authority's expiration. This delay results in data that is three to four months after actual separation dates. It is clear that reporting to EHRI would be on the same or similar schedule to the reporting required by this regulation. Deleting the regulatory reporting requirement should not have an adverse effect on OPM's ability to monitor agencies' compliance with their approved plans. We also are amending the citation for part 576, as it contained a typographical error.
• Section 792.204 requires agencies providing child care subsidies to report utilization data to OPM annually. As we have not discerned a sufficient level of interest in this information to justify requiring it on an annual basis, we are removing this requirement and requiring agencies to track the utilization of their funds and report the results to OPM as needed.
• Sections 831.114 and 842.213 concern reports on agencies' use of Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERAs). Because OPM plans to obtain this data, when needed, from its EHRI database and also ask agencies to address the effectiveness of VERAs in their annual performance reports, we are removing paragraph (p) from each of these provisions. Agencies are required to report on a quarterly basis, within 30 days of the end of each quarter, and a final report is due within 60 days of the authority's expiration. This delay results in data that is three to four months after actual separation dates. It is clear that reporting to EHRI would be on the same or similar schedule to the reporting required by this regulation. Deleting the regulatory reporting requirement should not have an adverse effect on OPM's ability to monitor agencies' compliance with their approved plans.
OPM published a proposed rule on October 10, 2014 (79 FR 61266), to remove regulatory requirements for Federal agencies to submit reports to OPM relating to their implementation of certain human resources management programs and authorities. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on December 9, 2014. OPM received one comment.
“With the removal of required annual reporting regarding utilization of funds, how will OPM be assured that funds are used for the proposed purpose? Will there be a need for random additional audits?”
The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 13563 and 12866.
This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
Government employees.
Government employees, Wages.
Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Day care, Drug use, Government employees.
Firefighters, Government employees, Income taxes, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Retirement.
Air traffic controllers, Alimony, Firefighters, Law enforcement officers, Pensions, Retirement.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Accordingly, OPM is proposing to amend chapter I of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
5 U.S.C. 1104(a)(2), 1302, 2302, 3301, 3302, 3304, 3319, 5364; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; 33 FR 12423, Sept. 4, 1968; 45 FR 18365, Mar. 21, 1980; 116 Stat. 2290, sec. 1413 of Public Law 108-136 (117 Stat. 1665), as amended by sec. 853 of Public Law 110-181 (122 Stat. 250).
Sections 3521 through 3525 of title 5, United States Code.
After OPM approves an agency plan for Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments, the agency must immediately notify OPM of any subsequent changes in the conditions that served as the basis for the approval of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment authority.
5 U.S.C. 7361-7363; Sec. 643, Pub. L. 106-58, 113 Stat. 477; 40 U.S.C. 590(g).
(c) Agencies are responsible for tracking the utilization of their funds and reporting the results to OPM at such time and in such manner as OPM prescribes.
5 U.S.C. 8347; Sec. 831.102 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8334; Sec. 831.106 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a; Sec. 831.108 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8336(d)(2); Sec. 831.114 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8336(d)(2), and Sec. 1313(b)(5) of Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; Sec. 831.201(b)(1) also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8347(g); Sec. 831.201(b)(6) also issued under 5 U.S.C. 7701(b)(2); Sec. 831.201(g) also issued under Secs. 11202(f), 11232(e), and 11246(b) of Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251; Sec. 831.201(g) also issued under Sec. 7(b) and (e) of Pub. L. 105-274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 831.201(i) also issued under Secs. 3 and 7(c) of Pub. L. 105-274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 831.204 also issued under Sec. 102(e) of Pub. L. 104-8, 109 Stat.102, as amended by Sec. 153 of Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321; Sec. 831.205 also issued under Sec. 2207 of Pub. L.106-265, 114 Stat. 784; Sec. 831.206 also issued under Sec. 1622(b) of Pub. L.104-106, 110 Stat. 515; Sec. 831.301 also issued under Sec. 2203 of Pub. L. 106-265, 114 Stat. 780; Sec. 831.303 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8334(d)(2) and Sec. 2203 of Pub. L. 106-235, 114 Stat. 780; Sec. 831.502 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8337, and Sec. 1(3), E.O. 11228, 3 CFR 1965-1965 Comp. p. 317; Sec. 831.663 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8339(j) and (k)(2); Secs. 831.663 and 831.664 also issued under Sec. 11004(c)(2) of Pub. L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 412; Sec. 831.682 also issued under Sec. 201(d) of Pub. L. 99-261, 100 Stat. 23; Sec. 831.912 also issued under Sec. 636 of Appendix C to Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-164; Subpart P also issued under Sec. 535(d) of Title V of Division E of Pub. L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 2042; Subpart V also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8343a and Sec. 6001 of Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-275; Sec. 831.2203 also issued under Sec. 7001(a)(4) of Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388-328.
5 U.S.C. 8461(g); Secs. 842.104 and 842.106 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8461(n); Sec. 842.104 also issued under Secs. 3 and 7(c) of Pub. L. 105-274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 842.105 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8402(c)(1) and 7701(b)(2); Sec. 842.106 also issued under Sec. 102(e) of Pub. L. 104-8, 109 Stat. 102, as amended by Sec. 153 of Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-102; Sec. 842.107 also issued under Secs. 11202(f), 11232(e), and 11246(b) of Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, and Sec. 7(b) of Pub. L. 105-274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 842.108 also issued under Sec. 7(e) of Pub. L. 105-274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 842.109 also issued under Sec. 1622(b) of Public Law 104-106, 110 Stat. 515; Sec. 842.208 also issued under Sec. 535(d) of Title V of Division E of Pub. L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 2042; Sec. 842.213 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8414(b)(1)(B) and Sec. 1313(b)(5) of Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; Secs. 842.304 and 842.305 also issued under Sec. 321(f) of Pub. L. 107-228, 116 Stat. 1383; Secs. 842.604 and 842.611 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8417; Sec. 842.607 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8416 and 8417; Sec. 842.614 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8419; Sec. 842.615 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8418; Sec. 842.703 also issued under Sec. 7001(a)(4) of Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388; Sec. 842.707 also issued under Sec. 6001 of Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1300; Sec. 842.708 also issued under Sec. 4005 of Pub. L. 101-239, 103 Stat. 2106 and Sec. 7001 of Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388; Subpart H also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1104; Sec. 842.810 also issued under Sec. 636 of Appendix C to Pub. L. 106-554 at 114 Stat. 2763A-164; Sec. 842.811 also issued under Sec. 226(c)(2) of Public Law 108-176, 117 Stat. 2529; Subpart J also issued under Sec. 535(d) of Title V of Division E of Pub. L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 2042.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that implemented a recommendation from the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Onion Committee (Committee) to decrease the assessment rate established for the 2015-2016 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.10 to $0.05 per hundredweight of onions handled under the Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion 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 July 1 and ends June 30. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Effective December 7, 2015.
Sue Coleman, Marketing Specialist, or Gary D. Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or Email:
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order and agreement regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 130 and Order No. 958, both as amended (7 CFR part 958), regulating the handling of onions grown in designated counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon, 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.
Under the order, Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion handlers are subject to assessments, which provide funds to administer the order. Assessment rates issued under the order are intended to be applicable to all assessable onions for the entire crop year, and continue indefinitely until amended, suspended, or terminated. The Committee's fiscal period begins on July 1, and ends on June 30.
In an interim rule published in the
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 250 producers of onions in the production area and approximately 31 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, as reported in the
This rule continues the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-2016 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.10 to $0.05 per hundredweight of onions handled. The Committee recommended 2015-2016 expenditures of $705,473 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per hundredweight. The assessment rate of $0.05 is $0.05 lower than the 2014-2015 rate. The quantity of assessable onions for the 2015-2016 fiscal period is estimated at 8,800,000 hundredweight. Thus, the $0.05 rate should provide $440,000 in assessment income. Assessment income, along with interest and other income, contributions and grants, and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, $217,223, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $705,473.
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased 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, and may reduce the burden on producers.
In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Idaho-Eastern Oregon 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 April 21, 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.
This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Idaho-Eastern Oregon 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.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before October 19, 2015. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, as published in the
Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes. This AD requires repetitive breakaway torque checks and torqueing of the brake inlet self-sealing couplings. This AD also requires revising the airplane flight manual to include procedures to follow in the event of certain display indications. This AD was prompted by reports of the self-sealing couplings on the brake inlet fitting that have been found backed out of the fully seated position. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct inadequate torque on the self-sealing coupling. This condition could result in an unannounced total loss of braking capability on one or multiple brakes, which could result in a runway overrun or asymmetrical braking that can lead to a lateral runway excursion.
This AD is effective December 4, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 4, 2015.
We must receive comments on this AD by January 19, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Gideon Jose, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ACE-119A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5569; fax: 404-474-5606; email:
We have received reports of self-sealing couplings on the brake inlet fitting that have been found backed out of the fully seated position. Due to the function of these couplings, this issue allows for the self-sealing mechanism to activate and cut off hydraulic pressure to the brake caliper, resulting in reduced or no braking ability on the affected wheel while the brake pressure indications remain normal on the flight deck indicators. Multiple coupling failures may lead to loss of braking capability on more than one wheel, creating the potential for loss of aircraft braking effectiveness on one or multiple brakes. Since the flight deck brake pressure indications would appear normal under these conditions, the crew will have no indications other than the loss of braking control on one or
Gulfstream has issued G650 Alert Customer Bulletin 4A, dated November 13, 2015; and G650ER Alert Customer Bulletin 4A, dated November 13, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a breakaway torque check and torqueing the brake inlet self-sealing couplings. 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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the AD and the Service Information.”
Although Gulfstream G650 Alert Customer Bulletin 4A, dated November 13, 2015; and G650ER Alert Customer Bulletin 4A, dated November 13, 2015; recommend that the breakaway torque check and torqueing the brake inlet self-sealing couplings be repeated only one time, this AD requires repetitive accomplishment of the checks and torqueing of the brake inlet self-sealing coupling at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles. We have determined repetitive actions are necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. We have coordinated this difference with Gulfstream.
We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD and would terminate the repetitive actions in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because an unannounced total loss of braking capability on one or multiple brakes can cause a runway overrun or asymmetrical braking that can lead to a lateral runway excursion. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The steps identified as Required for Compliance (RC) in any service information identified previously have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the following provisions apply: (1) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD, and an AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures; and (2) steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
We estimate that this AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 4, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 6001 and 6003 through 6163 inclusive.
Model GVI airplanes are also referred to by marketing designations G650 and G650ER.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of the self-sealing couplings on the brake inlet fitting that have been found backed out of the fully seated position. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct inadequate torque on the self-sealing coupling. This condition could result in an unannounced total loss of braking capability on one or multiple brakes, which could result in a runway overrun or asymmetrical braking that can lead to a lateral runway excursion.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 15 days after the effective date of this AD, perform a breakaway torque check and torque the brake inlet self-sealing couplings, in accordance with Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Gulfstream G650 Alert Customer Bulletin 4A, dated November 13, 2015; or Gulfstream G650ER Alert Customer Bulletin 4A, dated November 13, 2015; as applicable.
(2) Within 100 flight cycles after completing the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, perform a breakaway torque check and torque the brake inlet self-sealing couplings, in accordance with Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Gulfstream G650 Alert Customer Bulletin 4A, dated November 13, 2015; or Gulfstream G650ER Alert Customer Bulletin 4A, dated November 13, 2015; as applicable. Repeat the actions thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles.
Within 15 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations section of the AFM to include the statement found in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to that in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
Within 15 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations section of the AFM to include the statement found in figure 2 to paragraph (i) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to that in figure 2 to paragraph (i) of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Gulfstream G650 Alert Customer Bulletin 4, dated November 6, 2015; or Gulfstream G650ER Alert Customer Bulletin 4, dated November 6, 2015; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
Although Gulfstream G650 Alert Customer Bulletin 4A, dated November 13, 2015; and Gulfstream G650ER Alert Customer Bulletin 4A, dated November 13, 2015; specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (l)(3)(i) and (l)(3)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, Gideon Jose, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ACE-119A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5569; fax: 404-474-5606; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Gulfstream G650 Alert Customer Bulletin 4A, dated November 13, 2015.
(ii) Gulfstream G650ER Alert Customer Bulletin 4A, dated November 13, 2015.
(3) For Gulfstream service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Final rule.
This final rule establishes the definition of “chronically homeless” that will be used in HUD's Continuum of Care Program, and in the Consolidated Submissions for Community Planning and Development Programs. This definition has been the subject of significant public comment which has guided HUD in establishing the definition of “chronically homeless” that will be used in its homeless assistance programs. The final rule also establishes the necessary recordkeeping requirements that correspond to the definition of “chronically homeless” for the Continuum of Care Program. Historically, other programs within HUD, as well as other agencies such as the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Department of Veteran Affairs, have adopted HUD's definition of chronically homeless and
Norm Suchar, Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone number 202-708-4300 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons can access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
The purpose of this rule is to establish a final definition of the term “chronically homeless” that will be used in HUD's Continuum of Care Program (24 CFR part 578) and the Consolidated Submissions for Community Planning and Development Programs (24 CFR part 91). “Chronically homeless” is defined in section 401(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 11360 (McKinney-Vento Act or Act), as an individual or family that is homeless and resides in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter, and has been homeless and residing in such a place for at least 1 year or on at least four separate occasions in the last 3 years. The statutory definition also requires that the individual or family has a head of household with a diagnosable substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability, post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from a brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability.
Following the statutory definition, HUD first proposed a regulatory definition of “chronically homeless” in a December 5, 2011, interim rule that established regulations for the Emergency Solutions Grants program and made conforming amendments to HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations (76 FR 75954). In response to concerns raised in public comments, HUD amended the definition of “chronically homeless” in the Continuum of Care Program interim rule, published July 31, 2012 (77 FR 45422), and sought further public comment on the definition of “chronically homeless.” At a convening held on May 30, 2012, HUD also solicited feedback from nationally recognized experts on a workable definition of “chronically homeless,” as described in the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program proposed rule, published March 27, 2013 (78 FR 18726). This final rule results from HUD's consideration of the public comments on the definition of “chronically homeless” and feedback from the convening of nationally recognized experts.
This rule provides a definition of “chronically homeless” in 24 CFR 91.5, which applies to Consolidated Submissions for Community Planning and Development Programs, and in 24 CFR 578.3, which applies to the Continuum of Care Program. In addition, this rule amends 24 CFR 578.103, which stipulates recordkeeping requirements for the Continuum of Care Program, to include requirements that recipients and subrecipients of Continuum of Care funds must follow in order to demonstrate that an individual or family has met the definition of “chronically homeless.”
A “chronically homeless” individual is defined to mean a homeless individual with a disability who lives either in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter, or in an institutional care facility if the individual has been living in the facility for fewer than 90 days and had been living in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter immediately before entering the institutional care facility. In order to meet the “chronically homeless” definition, the individual also must have been living as described above continuously for at least 12 months, or on at least four separate occasions in the last 3 years, where the combined occasions total a length of time of at least 12 months. Each period separating the occasions must include at least 7 nights of living in a situation other than a place not meant for human habitation, in an emergency shelter, or in a safe haven.
Chronically homeless families are families with adult heads of household who meet the definition of a chronically homeless individual. If there is no adult in the family, the family would still be considered chronically homeless if a minor head of household meets all the criteria of a chronically homeless individual. A chronically homeless family includes those whose composition has fluctuated while the head of household has been homeless.
Recipients and subrecipients of Continuum of Care Program funds are required to maintain and follow written intake procedures to ensure compliance with the “chronically homeless” definition. The procedures must establish the order of priority for obtaining evidence as third-party documentation first, intake worker observations second, and certification from the individual seeking assistance third.
This final rule establishes a regulatory definition for the term “chronically homeless” that meets the statutory definition of the term established in the McKinney-Vento Act and focuses on persons with the longest histories of homelessness, who often also have the highest need. This will ensure that funds are targeted to providing permanent supportive housing solutions for these individuals and families.
This final definition of “chronically homeless” provides greater clarity than the statutory definition and HUD's previous proposed definitions so that recipients and subrecipients can benefit from understanding which homeless individuals and families can be considered “chronically homeless.” This final definition will ensure that communities are consistently using the same criteria when considering whether a person is chronically homeless, and that HUD receives consistent and accurate information nationwide. Communities previously used various standards for the length of time to define an “episode” for a person to be considered chronically homeless, which made it difficult for HUD to compare data nationally and failed to ensure resources were going to those with the longest histories of homelessness.
Although recordkeeping necessarily entails costs, and this rule establishes certain recordkeeping requirements for
The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH Act), which was enacted on May 20, 2009, amended the McKinney-Vento Act and consolidates three separate homeless assistance programs administered by HUD under the McKinney-Vento Act into a single grant program, the Continuum of Care Program; revises the Emergency Shelter Grants Program and renames the program the Emergency Solutions Grants program; and creates the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program to replace the Rural Homelessness Grant program. Commencing in 2010 with the publication of the proposed rule on the definition of “homeless,” HUD initiated the rulemaking process to establish the regulations for these new and revised programs. In this rule, HUD provides the final definition of “chronically homeless” that will apply to its homeless assistance programs, and makes this definition applicable, through amendments, to the regulations at 24 CFR part 91(Consolidated Submissions for Community Planning and Development Programs) and 24 CFR part 578 (Continuum of Care Program).
On December 5, 2011, at 76 FR 75954, HUD published an interim rule which established the regulations for the Emergency Solutions Grants program and made conforming amendments to HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations at 24 CFR part 91, which included a definition of “chronically homeless.” HUD received 28 public comments on this definition of “chronically homeless.” The majority of the commenters raised concerns over HUD's clarification that “an occasion” must equal at least 15 days of living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, in a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter. In response to these concerns, HUD included a definition of “chronically homeless” that omitted this clarification in the Continuum of Care Program interim rule, published July 31, 2012, in the
On March 27, 2013, HUD published a proposed rule at 78 FR 18726 that would establish the regulations for the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program. In addition to proposing the regulations that would govern this program, the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program proposed rule submitted for public comment a further revised definition of “chronically homeless.” The public comment period for the definition of “chronically homeless” closed on May 28, 2013, and these public comments and HUD's responses to these comments are addressed later in this preamble.
In the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program proposed rule, HUD defined a chronically homeless person as follows:
1. An individual who:
• Is homeless and lives in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter; and
• Has been homeless and living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter continuously for at least 1 year or on at least four separate occasions in the last 3 years, where the cumulative total of the four occasions is at least one year. Stays in institutions of 90 days or less will not constitute as a break in homelessness, but rather such stays are included in the cumulative total; and
• Can be diagnosed with one or more of the following conditions: Substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability (as defined in section 102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15002)), post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability;
2. An individual who has been residing in an institutional care facility, including a jail, substance abuse or mental health treatment facility, hospital, or other similar facility for fewer than 90 days and met all of the criteria in paragraph (1), before entering that facility; or
3. A family with an adult head of household (or if there is no adult in the family, a minor head of household) who meets all of the criteria in paragraph (1), including a family whose composition has fluctuated while the head of household has been homeless.
After reviewing the public comments, which are discussed in Section IV of this preamble, and upon HUD's further consideration of concerns related to the proposed definition of “chronically homeless,” the following highlights the changes that are made by this final rule.
The public comment period on the definition of “chronically homeless” portion of the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program proposed rule closed on May 28, 2013, and HUD received 177 public comments related to this definition. HUD also received 23 comments for the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program proposed rule unrelated to the definition of “chronically homeless” and will respond to those comments in the final rule for the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program. Regarding the public comments on the definition of “chronically homeless,” HUD received comments from a variety of sources: Advocacy groups, service providers, case managers, State and local government agencies, nonprofit organizations, private companies, and private citizens.
General concerns most frequently expressed by commenters about the proposed definition were: (1) The length of time an individual or family must be homeless and living in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter based on the proposed definition was too long and would require households to experience longer periods of homelessness in order to qualify as chronically homeless, and (2) documenting chronically homeless status based on the proposed definition would be too burdensome.
Regarding the first concern, it is not HUD's intent to make an individual or family experience a longer period of homelessness. Rather, HUD's primary intent is to align the period of time of those experiencing occasional homelessness with that of those who are experiencing continuous homelessness. This will also ensure that individuals and families who
Regarding the second concern, it is critical to note that recipients of Continuum of Care Program-funded permanent supportive housing projects with one or more beds that are required through a grant agreement to serve individuals and families experiencing chronic homelessness have always been required to document the chronically homeless status of program participants that will occupy those beds, at the point of program entry. Failure to maintain appropriate documentation of a household's eligibility is the monitoring finding that most often requires recipients of HUD funds to repay grant funds. HUD recognizes that not including recordkeeping requirements for documenting chronically homeless status in the regulatory text of the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program proposed rule resulted in some confusion about HUD's expectations and resulted in a number of commenters raising concerns that recordkeeping requirements would be overly burdensome for those recipients. Therefore, this final rule includes, in the regulatory text, recordkeeping requirements to assist Continuum of Care Program recipients in appropriately documenting chronically homeless status that take into consideration that documenting the length of time homeless will be challenging. In addition, HUD notes that the revised Homeless Management Information System Data Standards published in May 2014 include data elements that are aligned with this definition in order to more easily allow for chronically homeless persons to be identified through the Continuum of Care's Homeless Management Information System.
Comment: Concern that the expert panel was mainly composed of researchers and not practitioners. Several commenters expressed disappointment that the expert panel hosted by HUD to develop the proposed definition of “chronically homeless” was composed mostly of researchers and not practitioners or technicians. These commenters recommended that HUD invite stakeholders responsible for service delivery to such discussions prior to final rulemaking.
HUD Response: Although several of the experts that participated in the convening were researchers, HUD also included several practitioners. As stated in the summary of the convening, posted at
Comment: Definition of “chronically homeless” should have been issued separately from the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program proposed rule. A few commenters stated that in order to solicit the most comments on the definition of “chronically homeless,” requesting comments on the definition of “chronically homeless”
HUD Response: HUD's proposed rule on the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program offered an opportunity to further solicit public comment on HUD's definition of “chronically homeless.” HUD first introduced the definition of “chronically homeless” as part of its “Emergency Solutions Grants program and Consolidated Plan Conforming Amendments interim rule,” not as a stand-alone rule on defining chronically homeless. Although HUD did not solicit public comment on specific aspects of the definition of “chronically homeless” in its Continuum of Care Program rule, HUD did address the definition in that rule, and informed interested parties of its intent to solicit further public comment. As the commenters note, the definition of “chronically homeless” applies to all of HUD's homeless assistance programs. Soliciting comments on HUD's proposed definition in connection with solicitation of comments on the Emergency Solutions Grants program interim rule or on the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program rule did not diminish the importance of this definition, but rather underscored the significant role that this definition will have in each of these programs, and underscores the value that HUD placed on receiving public comment on this definition. Although HUD did not issue the definition of “chronically homeless” as a stand-alone proposed rule, it is HUD's intent to issue a final rule solely on the definition.
Comment: HUD needs to account for estimated hours and costs to service providers trying to meet requirements of the definition. A few commenters requested that HUD account for the total estimated hours and financial costs it would take service providers to complete the requirements of this rule.
HUD Response: This final rule establishes the final definition of “chronically homeless” by incorporating the definition into 24 CFR parts 91 and 578. HUD requires Continuum of Care Program recipients of permanent supportive housing that are required to serve persons experiencing chronic homelessness to determine and document that any individual or family assisted meets the definition of “chronically homeless” as defined in this final rule. Each recipient must obtain documentation of homeless status, disability, and the specific period of time the individual or head of household was living in an emergency shelter, safe haven, or place not meant for human habitation. The burden for collecting the required homeless status and disability information was considered in the burden estimates for the Continuum of Care Program interim rule (77 FR 45421). The public had the opportunity to provide comments on those estimates during the public comment period. In some instances, the documentation obtained under the existing burden of the Continuum of Care Program interim rule will already meet the standards for documenting the length of time an individual or head of household resided in a place not meant for human habitation, an emergency shelter, or a safe haven as required in this rule. In other instances, recipients and subrecipients may need to spend more time acquiring the documents necessary to show that an individual meets the timeframe necessary residing in a place not meant for human habitation, an emergency shelter, or a safe haven to qualify as “chronically homeless.” See Section VI, Information Collection Requirements, for more information about HUD's change to its existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Comment: Problems in reporting such information in Homeless Management Information Systems. Several commenters expressed concerns about how to document and report chronically homeless status in their Homeless Management Information System. One commenter pointed to the variations across the country around how chronic homelessness is reported in the Homeless Management Information System and noted that Continuums of Care would not be able to uniformly and accurately document homelessness spent living in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter over a 3-year period in their Homeless Management Information Systems. Other commenters stated that many Homeless Management Information Systems are closed and do not share information with other Continuums of Care, which could create a problem in documenting chronically homeless status for homeless persons moving between Continuums of Care. Another commenter expressed concern that data entry personnel and case managers do not have the expertise to determine whether a person meets the criteria to be classified as chronically homeless, and concern about the time service providers would spend on data entry rather than on providing services. Further, the commenter requested that HUD improve the Homeless Management Information System and the data entry process and establish data elements to capture a person's chronically homeless status.
HUD Response: HUD acknowledges that Homeless Management Information Systems across the country do not always collect data on chronically homeless status uniformly. HUD believes that the promulgation of its definition of “chronically homeless” will assist communities in collecting consistent data. HUD also included specific data elements in the 2014 Homeless Management Information System Data Standards to allow for uniform data collection on chronically homeless status. These data standards take into account that not all chronically homeless persons have a service interaction with the Continuum of Care's Homeless Management Information System and allow for history of homelessness to be documented based on the information provided by the program participant. It should also be noted that it is not HUD's expectation that the person entering data into the Homeless Management Information System also be responsible for determining program eligibility.
Comment: Proposed definition impedes ability to compare data. Many commenters expressed concerns that the new definition of “chronically homeless” would impede their ability to compare current and future data with data from previous years. A few commenters stated that the new definition would hinder efforts to measure “real” progress in reducing the chronically homeless population, as data would not be comparable.
HUD Response: HUD acknowledges that the change in the definition of “chronically homeless” may mean that the number of persons experiencing chronic homelessness within a community may change as a result of the new definition. However, this more detailed definition is necessary in order to ensure that communities are consistently using the same criteria when considering whether a person is chronically homeless. A uniformly applied definition also serves to ensure that HUD has more consistent and accurate information. Previously, communities used various standards for the length of time to define an “episode” for a person to be considered chronically homeless, which made it difficult for HUD to compare data nationally. The definition of “chronically homeless” in the final rule will ensure consistency in the data nationwide. HUD notes that this will
Comment: A narrow definition of “chronically homeless” will result in an increase in vacancies in units designated for the chronically homeless and individuals and families spending a longer time in a place not meant for human habitation. Several commenters expressed concerns that the more narrow definition of “chronically homeless” included in the proposed rule would result in an increase in vacant units otherwise dedicated to the chronically homeless. Several commenters suggested that they would have difficulty locating individuals or families who meet the criteria of the proposed definition.
One commenter expressed concern that the proposed definition would affect local and State governments, in addition to homeless individuals, stating that the new definition would result in more people being on the street for longer periods of time resulting in the following: an increased demand for emergency shelters, a burden on local police services since more individuals would be in unstable situations, and a decrease in property values. The commenter suggested that HUD phase in the new definition over a few years by incrementally increasing the cumulative episode threshold in order to provide localities time to plan their budgets and give homeless individuals time to adjust their expectations.
Another commenter requested guidance on what providers with dedicated permanent supportive housing beds should do if they are unable to locate persons that meet this definition.
Several commenters recommended that HUD establish a “tiering system” where communities that are unable to identify people who meet requirements for “chronically homeless” may target permanent supportive housing for other vulnerable homeless persons. Similarly, other commenters recommended that HUD consider a prioritization policy for homeless individuals eligible for permanent supportive housing and remove the requirement that 100 percent of new permanent supportive housing units be designated for the chronically homeless.
HUD Response: HUD recognizes that the definition of “chronically homeless” is not inclusive of all vulnerable homeless populations; however, HUD has intentionally focused the definition of “chronically homeless” on those persons with the longest histories of homelessness and with the highest need and believes that this is a reasonable implementation of the statutory requirements established in section 401 of the McKinney-Vento Act. The definition is not intended to require individuals and families to have longer periods of homelessness before being served; rather, the definition allows for persons who already meet such criteria to be prioritized for Continuum of Care Program-funded permanent supportive housing dedicated to persons experiencing chronic homelessness.
In addition, HUD published guidance
Comment: Definition does not target those with longest histories and most severe cases of homelessness. One commenter stated that the proposed definition of “chronically homeless” does not target those with the longest histories and most severe cases of homelessness, such as those with histories of homelessness that have four or more episodes in more than the past 3 years.
HUD Response: HUD recognizes that there are individuals and families with long histories of homelessness that may not meet the definition of “chronically homeless” included in the final rule. For example, individuals and families who have been homeless and living in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter for 12 months or longer in the past 3 years but where there were fewer than four distinct occasions and the current occasion lasted less than 12 months would not be considered chronically homeless. However, because the statutory definition of “chronically homeless” requires at least four occasions over a 3-year time frame, the number of occasions necessary to be considered chronically homeless cannot be changed. Individuals or families who have longer histories of homelessness spent living a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter and who have experienced at least four occasions in the last 3 years are considered chronically homeless so long as the adult head of household (or minor head of household where no adult is present) has a disability as required by the definition. However, an individual or family who has a history of homelessness spent living in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter where the period of homelessness has not totaled 12 months either continuously or over a period of at least four occasions in the past 3 years would not be considered chronically homeless. For this reason, HUD has provided flexibility around what constitutes an occasion of homelessness and how to document the period of homelessness while still maintaining a uniform standard to ensure consistency across the country. HUD encourages recipients of Continuum of Care Program-funded permanent supportive housing not dedicated to the chronically homeless to prioritize persons that are most at risk of becoming chronically homeless and who are the most vulnerable.
Comment: Periods of homelessness do not automatically correlate to need. A commenter stated that those who have been homeless for shorter, sporadic periods of time that do not cumulatively total 365 days might be more physically and mentally prepared to use permanent supportive housing than those who have had longer episodes of homelessness. Similarly, one commenter stated that a longer length of time spent homeless does not necessarily indicate a higher level of need, and those who have been homeless for shorter periods might make better use of housing services.
HUD Response: HUD has determined that the definition of “chronically homeless” in section 401 of the McKinney-Vento Act should define those persons as chronically homeless that have had the longest histories of homelessness and highest need. The definition of “chronically homeless” set forth in 24 CFR parts 91 and 578 intentionally narrows the statutory definition to further ensure that limited resources targeted to this population are used to serve persons with the longest histories of homelessness and highest need. HUD acknowledges that there are
Comment: Require jurisdictions to produce a plan to specifically address dealing with chronic homelessness. A commenter stated that every region in the country should be required to have a plan that deals directly with the chronically homeless to show proof that they have worked on the issue through a statement with a local provider.
HUD Response: Each Continuum of Care submits its plan for addressing chronic homelessness through the Continuum of Care Application submitted under each Notice of Funding Availability for the Continuum of Care Program. This requirement will continue to be addressed through the Continuum of Care Program Competition; therefore, no additional requirements have been added to the final rule. In addition, each Consolidated Plan jurisdiction is required to develop a homeless strategy and this strategy must address the needs of, and resources available to, chronically homeless persons. This requirement will continue to be addressed through the Consolidated Plan requirements at 24 CFR part 91.
Comment: Adhere to the definition of “chronically homeless” included in the conforming amendments to the Consolidated Plan published with the Emergency Solutions Grants program interim rule. Several commenters stated that they preferred the definition of “chronically homeless” that was included in the conforming amendments to the Consolidated Plan published with the Emergency Solutions Grants program interim rule, which defined a homeless occasion as a period of at least 15 days.
HUD Response: The majority of public comments received on the definition of “chronically homeless” that was included in the conforming amendments to the Consolidated Plan published with the Emergency Solutions Grants program interim rule related to the requirement that to be considered an “occasion” a period of homelessness had to be a period of at least 15 days. Several commenters stated that the period of 15 days to define an “occasion” was arbitrary and was not the ideal definition. Upon review of these comments, HUD concluded that the 15-day standard did not effectively target persons with the longest histories of homelessness and highest level of need. The definition in the conforming amendments to the Consolidated Plan published with the Emergency Solutions Grants interim rule would have allowed for an individual or family experiencing occasions of homelessness to be considered chronically homeless within a period of as few as 65 days, while persons experiencing homelessness without a break would have to be homeless and residing in a place not meant for human habitation, in a safe haven, or an emergency shelter for at least 1 year. Consistent with research,
Comment: Use “vulnerability index” to measure chronic homelessness. Several commenters proposed alternative definitions for targeting the homeless population most in need of permanent supportive housing. Several commenters recommended that HUD replace the proposed definition of “chronically homeless” with “homeless persons determined to be vulnerable through the application of a standardized vulnerability index tool” that would be developed with stakeholders. These commenters also stated that homeless persons could be assigned spots on a community's “vulnerability list” so those most in need of services could be identified.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that it is important to consider a person's vulnerability or the severity of a person's needs when determining housing placement; however, the statutory definition of “chronically homeless” does not permit HUD to adopt the definition proposed by the commenters. HUD recognizes that individuals and families should be prioritized for permanent supportive housing under the Continuum of Care Program based on the severity of their needs. To this point, HUD has provided guidance to recipients of all Continuum of Care Program-funded permanent supportive housing encouraging Continuums of Care and permanent supportive housing providers to take other factors, such as vulnerability, into account when prioritizing households for permanent supportive housing.
Comment: Allow communities to define “chronically homeless” locally. A commenter suggested that establishing a global definition of “chronically homeless” has limitations and that communities should be encouraged to set their own “prioritization benchmarks” based on local conditions.
Another commenter recommended that the term “chronic” is a medical term, and is not an appropriate term to measure severity of homelessness, and suggested that HUD allow local Continuums of Care to submit their own definitions based on people with serious health conditions who have experienced multiple and/or long episodes of homelessness.
Finally, another commenter suggested that HUD provide rural communities the flexibility to determine what is meant by “not meant for human habitation” since many of these communities do not have condemnation procedures like those often used by urban areas.
HUD Response: The definition of “chronically homeless” in section 401 of the McKinney-Vento Act provides the basis for the definition of “chronically homeless” set forth in 24 CFR parts 91 and 578. Although the Act does allow
Comment: Include individuals and families who meet the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Education Act in the definition of chronically homeless. A commenter stated that individuals or families who meet the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act definition of “homeless” should also be considered chronically homeless.
HUD Response: The definition of “chronically homeless” included in this final rule reflects the statutory definition in section 401 of the Act. The statutory definition provides specific minimum criteria that an individual or family must meet in order to be defined as chronically homeless. Although HUD has the discretion to make the definition of “chronically homeless” more narrow in the final rule, the definition must include the minimum statutory requirements. Further, it is HUD's intention to ensure that the definition of “chronically homeless” targets those persons with the longest histories of homelessness who have been living in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter. Therefore, HUD has chosen to not change the final rule to include all individuals and families who meet the definition in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Act. HUD recognizes that there are vulnerable populations who are not included in this definition of “chronically homeless.” The definition of “chronically homeless” is not intended to include all vulnerable populations.
Comment: HUD should consider persons chronically at risk of homelessness the same as chronically homeless. A commenter suggested that HUD should treat “chronically homeless” and “chronically at risk of homelessness” as the same so that those who have not been able to maintain permanent supportive housing because of a loss of income due to a disability and inability to attain a permanent voucher are not penalized.
HUD Response: HUD recognizes that there are vulnerable populations who are not included in this definition of “chronically homeless”; however, defining chronically homeless more narrowly will allow limited resources to be prioritized for persons with the longest histories of homelessness and who are most likely to have the most severe service needs, which is consistent with the requirements established in section 401 of the McKinney-Vento Act. The statute does not support defining persons who are “at risk of homelessness” (on a recurring basis or otherwise) as chronically homeless as these persons do not meet the definition of homeless or chronically homeless as set forth in the Act. HUD reminds stakeholders that individuals and families who meet the definition of at risk of homelessness might be eligible for homelessness prevention assistance under either the Continuum of Care Program, if the Continuum of Care is a High Performing Community, or the Emergency Solutions Grants program.
Comment: Provide for different definitional criteria for “chronically homeless” for youth and families with children. Several commenters suggested that the definition of “chronically homeless” should have different definitional criteria for families with children and youth than for adult individuals. One commenter suggested that there should be different cumulative time frames for individuals, families, and youth. Specifically, the commenter proposed, “that the definition be changed so that a chronically homeless individual is defined as one who is homeless for at least 1 year or for a cumulative total of 180 days in the previous 3 years over multiple occasions, a chronically homeless family is defined as one that is currently homeless and has moved multiple times in the previous 12 months, where an adult and/or child family member is involved with more than one public service system, and a category is added for chronically homeless youth, who would be currently homeless individuals under the age of 25 who have moved multiple times in the previous 6 months, and this pattern of housing instability can be expected to continue.”
HUD Response: The single statutory definition of “chronically homeless” is inclusive of individuals, families with children, and unaccompanied youth and sets a minimum threshold that must be met for any person, regardless of age or household composition. HUD strived to reasonably implement the statutory definition by clarifying in the regulation that, for family households, only the head of household must meet the criteria for individuals who are defined as chronically homeless. The definition in the regulation also allows for changes to family composition over time. Beyond this clarification, creating a broader or less restrictive threshold for unaccompanied youth or families with children would undermine one of the goals of the “chronically homeless” definition, which is to help ensure that resources are focused on individuals and families with the longest experiences of homelessness spent living in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter. In addition, a person's status as part of a family may change and a youth may become an adult during his or her time living in an emergency shelter, safe haven, or place not meant for human habitation. Therefore, a single definition helps ensure that an individual's status does not change depending on whether he or she is part of a family at the time of intake or turns 25. Therefore, in the final rule, HUD has maintained that the standard for qualifying as chronically homeless is the same for all individuals, families with children, and unaccompanied youth. Families with children and unaccompanied youth, like single adults, who do not meet the criteria of chronically homeless might still meet the definition of “homeless” and if they do they are eligible for assistance under the Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grants program.
Comment: Define family in the definition of “chronically homeless.” Several commenters sought clarification on how HUD defines “family” for the purposes of defining “chronically homeless.” One commenter asked that HUD define the term “family” in a manner consistent with how it is defined in the
HUD Response: The proposed definition of “chronically homeless” did not define the term “family.” The
This definition of “family” applies in both the Emergency Solutions Grants and Continuum of Care Program rules. The McKinney-Vento Act distinguishes individuals from families. Therefore, paragraph (1) of the definition of “family” under the Equal Access Rule is considered an individual for the purposes of the definition of “chronically homeless” included in this final rule. This means that a chronically homeless family is any group of persons presenting for assistance together, where the head of household meets all of the criteria established in this final rule, regardless of marital status, actual or perceived sexual orientation, or gender identity, with or without children and irrespective of age or relationship. A child who is temporarily away from the home because of placement in foster care is considered a member of the family.
Comment: Clarify that any family member who meets the criteria of chronically homeless can qualify the family as chronically homeless. A few commenters requested that any member of the family could make the entire family meet the definition of “chronically homeless.” A commenter recommended that HUD consider revising the definition of “chronically homeless” specifically to allow for a minor child in a family to qualify the family household as chronically homeless. Another commenter recommended only that the children, instead of the adult head of household, be able to have one of the listed disabling conditions and qualify the family as chronically homeless because the barriers a disability presents to an individual are similar to the barriers faced by a parent of a child with a disability. Similarly, one commenter proposed adding language to clarify that the members of a family household all qualify as chronically homeless based on the head of household regardless of changes within the household composition.
HUD Response: The statutory definition of “chronically homeless” dictates that the adult head of household (or minor head of household if there is no adult in the family) must meet the criteria set forth in the definition. Therefore, the final rule cannot be revised from the proposed rule to allow for
However, because it is the adult head of household who qualifies a family as chronically homeless, the whole family is considered chronically homeless even if the household composition changed during the course of the head of household's homelessness. Language stating this was included in the proposed definition of “chronically homeless” and remains in the final definition of “chronically homeless.” For example, if an adult head of household has a qualifying disability and has been homeless continuously for 12 months and has been accompanied by another family member for only part of that time frame, the whole household meets the definition of a chronically homeless family.
Comment: Eliminate the requirement that to be chronically homeless an individual or family must experience four separate occasions of homelessness. Several commenters requested that HUD eliminate the requirement for four separate occasions of homelessness in favor of considering anyone that has been homeless for a cumulative total of 365 days over the past 3 years to be considered chronically homeless. One commenter stated that occasions are “too sloppy to define” and the concept is of little value.
HUD Response: HUD recognizes that the requirement for four or more separate occasions of homelessness over a 3-year period will not include individuals or families who have experienced only two occasions of homelessness over a 3-year period where the cumulative total is 12 months or greater. However, the requirement of four or more occasions is statutory and included in the definition of “chronically homeless” in the McKinney-Vento Act and, therefore, cannot be changed without a change to the statute. For this reason, HUD has provided maximum flexibility within the statutory framework about what constitutes a break between occasions and how to document the period of homelessness. In addition, HUD notes, for those stakeholders who submitted this comment because of concerns about these individuals and families not being eligible for needed resources, that the Continuum of Care and Emergency Solutions Grants programs fund a variety of housing and services for individuals and families who are homeless, but do not meet the criteria of chronically homeless.
Comment: Include a cumulative time frame for the four or more occasions but make that time frame less than 1 year. Many commenters disagreed with the proposed rule's cumulative length of time the four or more occasions must total in order for an individual or family to be considered chronically homeless. A few commenters proposed reducing the requirement from 1 year to 120 days. Several commenters suggested that the time frame should be reduced from 1 year to 6 months or 180 days. One commenter proposed that this 6-month time frame should apply to both occasional and consecutive periods of homelessness.
HUD Response: The statutory definition of “chronically homeless” requires individuals and families who meet the definition through a continuous occasion to have been homeless and living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, safe haven, or in an emergency shelter for at least 1 year. The statute set a different standard for persons who experience frequent occasions of homelessness, requiring at least four occasions over 3 years. The statute was silent on what qualified as an occasion of homelessness. HUD has determined that requiring four or more occasions to total at least 12 months would set a threshold of need comparable to the requirement for a continuous episode. This will help ensure that resources that are dedicated to serving chronically homeless persons are targeted to individuals and families with the longest experiences of homelessness regardless of whether they meet the threshold for chronic homelessness through a continuous occasion or through multiple occasions.
Comment: For the cumulative time frame for four or more occasions, count the time in months as opposed to days. One commenter proposed that the definition be revised to count homeless occasions in terms of months and not days. Another commenter recommended that the actual number of days homeless need not be counted and a single encounter with a service provider on a single day in one month could count for homeless status for the entire month.
HUD Response: The definition of “chronically homeless” included in the proposed rule did not specify how the time frame should be counted and instead just stated that the cumulative total of occasions must total at least 1 year. HUD agrees with the comment that changing 1 year to 12 months helps provide clarification about how to count
In addition, to clarify the recordkeeping requirements related to paragraph (1)(ii), § 578.103(a)(4) has been revised to include language on how documenting a single encounter within 1 month is sufficient documentation to count the individual or family as homeless for the entire month.
Comment: Give discretion to Continuums of Care to determine the length of the occasions of homelessness. Several commenters suggested that Continuums of Care should be provided with the flexibility to determine when an individual or family is chronically homeless and whether they have been homeless at least four times over the past 3 years.
HUD Response: In order to ensure that Continuums of Care nationwide are defining chronically homeless consistently for counting, eligibility, and reporting purposes, it is necessary to have one uniform definition of “chronically homeless” that applies nationwide. A uniform definition will allow for data from each community to be compared nationally, and that persons with the longest histories of homelessness who have been living in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter and with the most severe service needs are prioritized for assistance in permanent supportive housing. As more communities meet the Administration's goal of ending chronic homelessness, HUD will use the annual Continuum of Care Program Competition Notice of Funding Availability to reflect changes in priorities. However, the definition of “chronically homeless” will not change, as it is meant to encompass those homeless persons with the longest histories of living in places not meant for human habitation, in a safe haven, or in emergency shelters and who have the most severe service needs, and to the extent that there are persons that meet this criteria within a Continuum of Care they should always be counted and be prioritized for assistance.
Comment: Need guidance on what constitutes as a break in homelessness. Many commenters requested guidance on what constitutes as a break in homelessness in order to distinguish between occasions. One commenter requested guidance on how to document such breaks in Homeless Management Information System. Another commenter suggested that temporary housing situations of less than 1 week not constitute as a break. Several commenters suggested that periods of “couch surfing” should not constitute as a break in homelessness.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that in order to accurately document occasions of homelessness, it is necessary to understand and document the housing situation that ended the occasion; therefore, HUD has clarified in the recordkeeping requirements that a break in homelessness is any period of 7 or more consecutive nights where the individual or family is not residing in a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter or is residing in a place meant for human habitation. In addition, the final rule allows for stays in an institutional care facility where the individual has been residing for fewer than 90 days to not constitute as a break in homelessness either. HUD provided this clarification because of a comment provided through the comment process on the Continuum of Care Program interim rule recognizing that many hard-to-serve chronically homeless individuals and families have an opportunity to spend 1 or 2 nights on someone's couch, in a motel using all or most of the beneficiary's monthly Social Security Income or Social Security Disability Income check, in another location that allows them to briefly not sleep in a place not meant for human habitation, in an emergency shelter, or in a safe haven. HUD does not consider these periods of less than 7 nights a break in homelessness. Instead, these days would be counted towards a single occasion of homelessness living in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter. Only periods of 7 or more consecutive nights where the individual or family is not living in a place not meant for human habitation, in a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter would qualify as a break. Intake workers must follow the general recordkeeping standards of third-party evidence first, intake worker observation second, and self-certification of the head of household third, when documenting the break in homelessness.
Comment: Stays in living situations other than the streets, emergency shelters, or safe havens should be included in places an individual or family can reside and still meet the definition of “chronically homeless.” Several commenters suggested that HUD consider expanding the definition to allow for individuals and families in certain living situations to be considered chronically homeless. Numerous commenters suggested that individuals and families who have been living in “doubled up” situations should qualify as being chronically homeless. One commenter stated that periods spent “doubled up” should be counted if the individual or family moves two or more times within 60 days. Another commenter suggested that in addition to periods of living in “doubled up” situations, the definition should also include those living in unsuitable housing for long periods of time, such as old mobile homes or cabins without electricity and sewage. Another commenter suggested that the definition include “a person or family who does not have a permanent residence AND has moved two or more times in the past 60 days.”
Several commenters asked HUD to consider stays in transitional housing towards a person's homeless history when determining an individual or family's chronically homeless status. The commenters had various suggestions about how such stays could be incorporated. One commenter suggested that stays of 90 days or less in transitional housing should not constitute as a break. Similarly, another commenter asked HUD to consider including transitional housing programs in the definition of “institutional care facility,” which would allow stays in transitional housing for 90 days or less to not constitute as a break in homelessness. Another commenter proposed that the definition be expanded so that persons who have been living in transitional housing, for any period of time, may also be considered chronically homeless. Finally, one commenter was concerned that excluding time in transitional housing would disadvantage homeless veterans who would otherwise be eligible for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program because many of those veterans are initially housed in transitional housing.
HUD Response: HUD has interpreted the criteria in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the statutory definition by clarifying that short-term stays in institutional care facilities do not count as breaks in homelessness. HUD believes this clarification is supported by the widespread and longstanding recognition that persons experiencing chronic homelessness frequently cycle between short-term stays in institutional care facilities and emergency shelters, safe havens, and places not meant for human habitation. HUD also believes this widespread and longstanding recognition is implicit in paragraph (2) of the statutory definition, which allows certain individuals to qualify as chronically homeless even if they currently live in an institutional care facility, as opposed to an emergency shelter, safe haven, or place not meant for human habitation. There is nothing in the statutory definition to suggest that certain people should qualify as chronically homeless even if they are currently living in transitional housing or in “doubled up” locations as opposed to emergency shelters, safe havens, or places not meant for human habitation. Therefore, HUD has decided not to expand the qualifying residences beyond the places explicitly mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the statute.
Regarding HUD-VASH, specifically, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines chronic homeless status at the initial intake to VA homeless services. Therefore, veterans who qualify as chronically homeless at initial intake will maintain that status throughout the episode of care, even if they are served in a VA program that is characterized as transitional housing immediately prior to entry into HUD-VASH.
Comment: Clarification of how the word “continuously” is defined in the phrase “continuously homeless for at least one year.” A commenter asked how HUD is defining the word “continuously” in the phrase “continuously homeless for at least one year” in the definition of “chronically homeless.”
HUD Response: HUD has clarified that a break in homelessness is defined as 7 or more consecutive nights in a place that does not qualify as a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or an emergency shelter and, therefore, does not consider it to be necessary to define the word “continuously.”
Comment: Clarification is needed on “conditions” versus “disability.” Several commenters wrote about paragraph (1)(iii) in the proposed rule's definition of “chronically homeless,” which provides that a chronically homeless person is a person who can be diagnosed with one of the following conditions: “substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability (as defined in section 102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15002)), post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability.”
Commenters asked for clarification on what constitutes a “condition.” Other commenters asked about the specific list of “conditions” included in the definition. One commenter asked why the term “serious mental illness” is used instead of “severe and persistent mental illness,” while another commenter asked why “post-traumatic stress disorder” was included here but not in the definition of “disability” included in the McKinney-Vento Act. Other commenters referenced the Homeless Management Information System Data Standards and recommended that they be consistent.
Another commenter suggested that the language be revised to say that a chronically homeless person is a person who
Finally, one commenter said that the requirement to have a disability determination for each of the identified disabilities will cause an underreporting of disabilities, which will result in an underreporting of chronic homelessness.
HUD Response: The language included in the proposed definition of “chronically homeless” regarding the types of conditions a person must have in order to qualify as chronically homeless comes from the statute. HUD analyzed the list of conditions included in the statute in comparison with those included under the definition of “homeless individual with a disability” under the Act and determined that each of the “conditions” included under the statutory definition of “chronically homeless” are also included under the definition of “homeless individual with a disability.” Because an individual with one or more of the “conditions” included under the statutory definition of “chronically homeless” would qualify as a “homeless individual with a disability” under the Act, and because HUD wants to clarify that chronically homeless individuals and families are eligible for permanent supportive housing, which under the Continuum of Care Program interim rule means
Regarding the comment related to the phrase “can be diagnosed” found in the proposed rule, HUD decided to replace the list of “conditions” found in the proposed rule with the requirement that an individual must meet the definition of “homeless individual with a disability” in the Act. Therefore, the phrase “can be diagnosed” is not found in the final rule. It should be noted, however, that for the purposes of recordkeeping, the final rule permits evidence of a disability to be documented using an intake staff-recorded observation of disability that, no later than 45 days of the application for assistance, is confirmed and accompanied by evidence in 24 CFR 578.103(a)(4)(i)(B)(
Finally, regarding the last comment, there is no such “requirement to have a disability determination for each of the identified disabilities.” An adult head of household is only required to meet the definition of “homeless individual with a disability” as defined in section 401(9) of the McKinney-Vento Act in order to meet the definition of “chronically homeless” and the recipient is only required to keep on file evidence of the qualifying disabling condition as HUD has clarified in the recordkeeping requirements.
Comment: The definition of “chronically homeless” should include an income variable. A commenter recommended that HUD add an income variable as an indicator of chronic homelessness.
HUD Response: HUD disagrees with this recommendation. The statute does not include an income variable for either the definition of “homeless” or “chronically homeless” and HUD does not seek to expand either definition to include this component.
Comment: Provide guidance on what is meant by “institution.” One commenter stated that HUD should provide clear guidance on what constitutes an “institution.” Other commenters suggested that HUD include foster care in the definition of an institution and clarify that temporary placement in child welfare systems and foster care should constitute as a break in homelessness.
HUD Response: HUD acknowledges that clarification of institutional care facility is necessary, however, rather than establishing a fixed set of institutional care facilities in the final rule, HUD intends to issue guidance on the meaning of “institutional care facility.”
Comment: Consistently refer to stays in institutions that do not constitute as a break in homelessness for purposes of defining “chronically homeless” as either “90 days or less” or “fewer than 90 days.” One commenter stated that HUD should be consistent when referencing institutional stays because “90 days or less” in paragraph (1)(ii) of the definition is not the same as “fewer than 90 days” in paragraph (2) of this definition.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that the language around stays in an institution included in the proposed definition was inconsistent. The definition in this rule has been revised to clarify that an individual can be considered chronically homeless if they are residing in or have a history of residing in an institution for fewer than 90 days, where the individual or family resided in a place not meant for human habitation, in a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter immediately prior to entering the institution.
Comment: Define residence in institutional care facility as present and not past residence. A commenter suggested that HUD change the wording in paragraph (2) of the definition from “An individual who has been residing in an institutional care facility. . ..” to “An individual who is residing in an institutional care facility. . .”
HUD Response: HUD disagrees that this rewording is necessary. The phrase “has been residing in an institutional care facility” encompasses both the recent past and the current living situation of the individual and describes persons who are currently living or residing in an institutional care facility and whose total current stay in that facility will be fewer than 90 days.
Comment: Difficulty in documenting periods of homelessness. Many commenters expressed concern that it would be difficult to document or verify the time period of homelessness required in the proposed definition of “chronically homeless.” Some commenters stated that it would be difficult to verify where homeless individuals or families have slept if the individual or family had not had regular interaction with a homeless service provider. Other commenters stated that chronically homeless individuals and families would not be able to remember or provide documentation for the exact period of time during which they had been homeless. Several commenters suggested that self-certification by the head of household of homeless status should be sufficient for documenting homeless status and history. Many commenters expressed concern that the requirement to track and verify cumulative lengths of homelessness would place an undue burden on homeless service providers, particularly in rural areas where there are fewer institutions or shelters. Commenters also requested that the final rule include specific guidance on how to document homeless status and history, particularly for persons that have been unsheltered. Finally, several commenters expressed concern that the definition would make counting chronically homeless persons in the Point-in-Time counts more difficult because enumerators will not have sufficient time to determine lengths of homelessness.
HUD Response: After reviewing the public comments, HUD acknowledges the lack of recordkeeping requirements for chronically homeless status in the proposed rule caused confusion and concern and HUD agrees it must provide specific guidance on documentation requirements for projects that are required to serve the chronically homeless. For this reason, the final rule includes a section on recordkeeping requirements. When creating the recordkeeping requirements, HUD acknowledged many of the potential difficulties expressed by the
Comment: If there is no penalty for lying there will be fraud. A commenter expressed concern that if there is no penalty for lying by the program participants about the length of time homeless, there is likely to be fraud.
HUD Response: In general, HUD expects that all homeless service providers will exercise due diligence when documenting periods of homelessness. The final rule includes recordkeeping requirements that will require third-party documentation where it is available, but allows for self-certification by the head of household seeking assistance in certain instances.
This final rule establishes a regulatory definition for the term “chronically homeless.” This rule focuses on persons with the longest histories of homelessness to ensure that funds are targeted to providing permanent supportive housing solutions for these individuals and families who are chronically homeless, consistent with the statutory definition of the term established in the McKinney-Vento Act. This definition will also ensure that communities are using the same criteria in determining whether a person is chronically homeless, and that HUD receives consistent and accurate information nationwide.
This new definition will use existing recordkeeping requirements for the Continuum of Care Program to document the homeless status of program participants, but adds that such documentation covers a program participant's homelessness status over a specific time period—at least 1 year or on at least 4 separate occasions in the last 3 years—to document the chronically homeless status of program participants. While in some instances additional program participant records will need to be obtained to identify an individual's “chronically homeless” status, the additional burden of obtaining these records will ensure that communities are appropriately targeting HUD funds to those with the greatest need.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This rule was determined to be a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f) of the order (although not an economically significant regulatory action under the order). The docket file is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of the General Counsel, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
The information collection requirements contained in this final rule have been submitted to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2506-0112. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and on the private
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This final rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments nor preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.
Aged, Grant programs—housing and community development, Homeless, Individuals with disabilities, Low- and moderate-income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community development, Community facilities, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant program—social programs, Homeless, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, parts 91 and 578 of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5315, 11331-11388, 12701-12711, 12741-12756, and 12901-12912.
(1) A “homeless individual with a disability,” as defined in section 401(9) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)), who:
(i) Lives in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter; and
(ii) Has been homeless and living as described in paragraph (1)(i) of this definition continuously for at least 12 months or on at least 4 separate occasions in the last 3 years, as long as the combined occasions equal at least 12 months and each break in homelessness separating the occasions included at least 7 consecutive nights of not living as described in paragraph (1)(i). Stays in institutional care facilities for fewer than 90 days will not constitute as a break in homelessness, but rather such stays are included in the 12-month total, as long as the individual was living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or an emergency shelter immediately before entering the institutional care facility;
(2) An individual who has been residing in an institutional care facility, including a jail, substance abuse or mental health treatment facility, hospital, or other similar facility, for fewer than 90 days and met all of the criteria in paragraph (1) of this definition, before entering that facility; or
(3) A family with an adult head of household (or if there is no adult in the family, a minor head of household) who meets all of the criteria in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition, including a family whose composition has fluctuated while the head of household has been homeless.
42 U.S.C. 11371
(1) A “homeless individual with a disability,” as defined in section 401(9) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)), who:
(i) Lives in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter; and
(ii) Has been homeless and living as described in paragraph (1)(i) of this definition continuously for at least 12 months or on at least 4 separate occasions in the last 3 years, as long as the combined occasions equal at least 12 months and each break in homelessness separating the occasions included at least 7 consecutive nights of not living as described in paragraph (1)(i). Stays in institutional care facilities for fewer than 90 days will not constitute as a break in homelessness, but rather such stays are included in the 12-month total, as long as the individual was living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or an emergency shelter immediately before entering the institutional care facility;
(2) An individual who has been residing in an institutional care facility, including a jail, substance abuse or mental health treatment facility, hospital, or other similar facility, for fewer than 90 days and met all of the criteria in paragraph (1) of this definition, before entering that facility; or
(3) A family with an adult head of household (or if there is no adult in the family, a minor head of household) who meets all of the criteria in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition, including a family whose composition has fluctuated while the head of household has been homeless.
(a) * * *
(4)
(i) For paragraph (1) of the “Chronically homeless” definition in § 578.3, evidence that the individual is a “homeless individual with a disability” as defined in section 401(9) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)) must include:
(A) Evidence of homeless status as set forth in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and
(B) Evidence of a disability. In addition to the documentation required under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A) of this section, the procedures must require documentation at intake of the evidence relied upon to establish and verify the disability of the person applying for homeless assistance. The recipient must keep these records for 5 years after the end of the grant term. Acceptable evidence of the disability includes:
(
(
(
(
(
(ii) For paragraph (1)(i) of the “Chronically homeless” definition in § 578.3, evidence that the individual lives in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or an emergency shelter, which includes:
(A) An HMIS record or record from a comparable database;
(B) A written observation by an outreach worker of the conditions where the individual was living;
(C) A written referral by another housing or service provider; or
(D) Where evidence in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section cannot be obtained, a certification by the individual seeking assistance, which must be accompanied by the intake worker's documentation of the living situation of the individual or family seeking assistance and the steps taken to obtain evidence in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(A) through (C).
(iii) For paragraph (1)(ii) of the “Chronically homeless” definition in § 578.3, evidence must include a combination of the evidence described in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section, subject to the following conditions:
(A) Third-party documentation of a single encounter with a homeless service provider on a single day within 1 month is sufficient to consider an individual as homeless and living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or an emergency shelter for the entire calendar month (
(B) Each break in homelessness of at least 7 consecutive nights not living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter between separate occasions must be documented with the evidence described in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section;
(C) Evidence of stays in institutional care facilities fewer than 90 days included in the total of at least 12 months of living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or an emergency shelter must include the evidence in paragraphs (a)(4)(iv)(A) through (B) of this section and evidence described in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section that the individual was living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or an emergency shelter immediately prior to entering the institutional care facility; and
(D) For at least 75 percent of the chronically homeless individuals and families assisted by a recipient in a project during an operating year, no more than 3 months of living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or an emergency shelter may be documented using the evidence in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(D) of this section for each assisted chronically homeless individual or family. This limitation does not apply to documentation of breaks in homelessness between separate occasions, which may be documented entirely based on a self-report by the individual seeking assistance.
(iv) If an individual qualifies as chronically homeless under paragraph (2) of the “Chronically homeless” definition in § 578.3 because he or she has been residing in an institutional care facility for fewer than 90 days and met all of the criteria in paragraph (1) of the definition, before entering that facility, evidence must include the following:
(A) Discharge paperwork or a written or oral referral from a social worker, case manager, or other appropriate official of the institutional care facility stating the beginning and end dates of the time residing in the institutional care facility. All oral statements must be recorded by the intake worker; or
(B) Where the evidence in paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(A) of this section is not obtainable, a written record of the intake worker's due diligence in attempting to obtain the evidence described in paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(A) and a certification by the individual seeking assistance that states that he or she is exiting or has just exited an institutional care facility where he or she resided for fewer than 90 days; and
(C) Evidence as set forth in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section that the individual met the criteria in paragraph (1) of the definition for “Chronically homeless” in § 578.3, immediately prior to entry into the institutional care facility.
(v) If a family qualifies as chronically homeless under paragraph (3) of the “Chronically homeless” definition in § 578.3, evidence must include the evidence as set forth in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section that the adult head of household (or if there is no adult in the family, a minor head of household) met all of the criteria in paragraph (1) or (2) of the definition.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule.
This rule amends the regulations to require lessees and owners of operating rights to submit summaries of actual decommissioning expenditures incurred after completion of certain decommissioning activities for oil and gas and sulphur operations on the Outer Continental Shelf. This information will help BSEE to better estimate future decommissioning costs related to OCS leases, rights-of-way, and rights of use and easement.
This final rule becomes effective on January 4, 2016.
Lakeisha Harrison, Chief, Regulations and Standards Branch,
This final rule requires lessees and owners of operating rights (collectively, “lessees”) to submit to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) summaries of actual expenditures for decommissioning of wells, platforms and other facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that are required under BSEE's existing regulations. This information will help BSEE to better estimate future decommissioning costs related to OCS leases, rights-of-way, and rights of use and easement. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) may then use BSEE's future decommissioning cost estimates to set necessary financial assurance levels to minimize or eliminate the possibility that the government will incur decommissioning liability.
In a proposed rule published on May 27, 2009, the Minerals Management Service (BSEE's predecessor agency) proposed to require lessees to submit information (including supporting documentation) regarding expenditures actually incurred for certain mandatory decommissioning activities within 30 days of completion of each activity. Based on BSEE's review of public comments on the proposed rule, the final rule generally requires only certified summaries of the actual expenditures (without other supporting documentation) for those decommissioning activities and extends the time period for submission of such reports to 120 days after completion of each such activity. BSEE may, however, require additional supporting information for specific decommissioning costs on a case-by-case basis.
On May 27, 2009, the former Minerals Management Service (MMS) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
This final rule completes the rulemaking for one of the issues covered by the proposed rule that is now under BSEE's authority. Specifically, this final rule addresses the proposed requirement that lessees submit information regarding actual expenditures incurred for certain decommissioning activities required under the existing regulations.
The other issues covered by the proposed rule now under BSEE's authority include proposed consolidation of mechanisms for maintaining and extending leases past their primary terms and a proposed requirement for submittal of pipeline-related reports after approval of an assignment or change of designated operator (
This final rule revises portions of BSEE's regulations at 30 CFR part 250, Subpart Q—
The proposed rule would have added new reporting provisions to three separate existing regulatory provisions—§§ 250.1717, 250.1729 and 250.1743—that require submission of decommissioning information (including supporting documentation) regarding well plugging and abandonment, removal of platforms and other facilities, and site clearance, respectively. BSEE has determined, however, that adding the decommissioning cost reporting requirements to three separate sections would be unnecessarily redundant and potentially confusing. Therefore, this final rule adds two new paragraphs—(h) and (i)—containing the decommissioning cost reporting requirements to the existing § 250.1704, which already provides other decommissioning applications and reporting requirements. This approach is intended to prevent unnecessary repetition and to provide for consistent cost reporting procedures for all of the specified decommissioning activities.
The following is a discussion of differences between the proposed rule and the final rule with regard to 30 CFR part 250.
Subpart Q—
Under the proposed rule, BSEE would have expected supporting documentation to include a statement certifying the truth and accuracy of the reported costs. The final rule addresses that expectation, and eliminates any potential ambiguity, by expressly requiring that cost summaries include such a certification statement.
In addition, after consideration of comments received regarding potential burdens on lessees from the proposed requirement for submission of supporting documentation for each expenditure, the final rule requires that lessees submit, to the appropriate BSEE Regional Supervisor, only a certified summary of decommissioning expenditures.
Finally, based on BSEE's review of the comments on the proposed rule, the final rule requires that lessees submit the summary of actual decommissioning costs within 120 days of completion of those decommissioning activities, instead of the proposed requirement for reporting within 30 days. BSEE has determined that 120 days constitutes a more appropriate period for lessees to collect, summarize, and submit this information.
In response to the proposed rule, BSEE received three comments, all from representatives of the offshore oil and gas industry, related to the provisions for reporting costs of decommissioning activities. The full text of the relevant comments can be viewed at:
In addition, the final rule provides examples of activities (including, but not limited to, expenses incurred for the use of rigs, vessels, equipment, supplies and materials, transportation of any kind, personnel, and services) associated with the specified decommissioning activities for which summaries of actual expenditures incurred must be submitted.
While the final rule does not include the proposed requirement to submit supporting documentation for each decommissioning expenditure, the final rule provides that BSEE may request additional information on a case-by-case basis to support the summary, as suggested by the commenter. However, in such cases, BSEE will minimize the burden by working directly with the lessee to determine what specific supporting information is required.
Finally, since the final rule now lists several examples of the types of expenditures that must be included in the summaries, and since BSEE will work with individual lessees to determine what additional supporting information, if any, is needed in specific cases, the possibility of inconsistent reporting suggested by the commenter will be minimized. In addition, BSEE expects to issue further guidance to assist lessees in preparing expenditure summaries, such as using cost classifications and accounting methods consistent with current OCS joint interest summary form billing standards and practices.
Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866) provides that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), will review all significant rules. BSEE has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 because:
Accordingly, BSEE has not prepared an economic analysis, and OIRA has not reviewed this rule.
Executive Order 13563 (E.O. 13563) reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. It also emphasizes that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. BSEE developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
BSEE certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
However, because the final rule requires only summary reports of actual expenditures related to performance of decommissioning activities, it will not impose significant new costs or burdens on offshore oil and gas companies. Accordingly, this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, and BSEE is not required by the RFA to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.
Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the actions of BSEE, call 1-888-734-3247. You may comment to the Small Business Administration (SBA) without fear of retaliation. Allegations of discrimination/retaliation filed with the SBA will be investigated for appropriate action.
This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 801
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule also will not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule will not have significant takings implications. The rule is not a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, a Takings Implication Assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have federalism implications. This rule does not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in OCS activities, this rule does not affect that role. Accordingly, a Federalism Assessment is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988 (E.O. 12988),
We have evaluated this rule under the Department's tribal consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes, or on the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.
This rule contains new information collection (IC) requirements and submission to the OMB under the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title of the collection of information for this rule is
We received three comments stating that the proposed requirements would impose a significant burden. Although we reduced the regulatory requirements for this final rule, as previously described, we felt it was prudent to use the same number of burden hours as in the proposed rule. We will adjust the burden hours accordingly in the IC renewal when industry has had enough experience with the final rule to determine the actual burden associated with these requirements. Also, based on comments received, there are some regulatory text revisions, which consist of the following. The final rule:
There are no non-hour cost burdens associated with this rulemaking. The following table is a breakdown of the burden estimate:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The public may comment at any time on the accuracy of the IC burden in this rule and may submit any comments to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Attention: Regulations and Standards Branch, VA-ORP, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166.
This rule meets the criteria set forth in 43 CFR 46.210(i) and 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 15.4C(1) for a categorical exclusion, because it involves modification of existing regulations, the impacts of which would be limited to administrative or economic effects with minimal environmental impacts.
We also analyzed this rule to determine if it involves any of the extraordinary circumstances set forth in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement for actions otherwise eligible for a categorical exclusion. We concluded that this rule does not meet any of the criteria for extraordinary circumstances.
In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (44 U.S.C. 3516
This rule is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 (E.O. 13211) because:
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Investigations, Oil and gas exploration, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur.
This document was received for publication by the Office of Federal Register on November 30, 2015.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, BSEE amends 30 CFR part 250 as follows:
30 U.S.C. 1751, 31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334.
You must submit decommissioning applications, receive approval of those applications, and submit subsequent reports according to the requirements and deadlines in the following table.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge across the Mississippi River, mile 579.9, at Dubuque, Iowa. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner time to perform preventive maintenance that is essential to the safe operation of the drawbridge. Maintenance is scheduled in the winter when there is less impact on navigation, instead of scheduling work in the summer when river traffic increases. This deviation allows the bridge to open on signal if at least 24-hours advance notice is given. It further allows the bridge to remain closed for up to 120 hours in duration occasionally to replace larger components as long as 72-hours notice is given to the USCG District Eight Western Rivers Bridge Branch.
This deviation is effective from 5 p.m., December 14, 2015 until 9 a.m., February 29, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, (USCG-2015-0999) is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2378, email
The Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad requested a temporary deviation for the Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 579.9, at Dubuque, Iowa to open on signal if at least 24-hours advance notice is given for 77 days from 5 p.m., December 14, 2015 until 9 a.m., February 29, 2016 for scheduled maintenance on the bridge. The deviation further allows the bridge to remain closed for up to 120 hours in duration occasionally to replace larger components as long as 72-hours notice is given to the USCG District Eight Western Rivers Bridge Branch.
The Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that the drawbridge shall open on signal.
There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River. The bridge cannot open in case of emergency.
Winter conditions on the Upper Mississippi River coupled with the closure of Army Corps of Engineer's Lock No. 13 (Mile 522.5 UMR) and Lock No. 21 (Mile 324.9 UMR) from 7 a.m. January 4, 2016 until 12 p.m., March 4, 2016 will preclude any significant navigation demands for the drawspan opening. In addition, Army Corps Lock No. 14 (Mile 493.3 UMR) and Lock No. 17 (Mile 437.1 UMR) will be closed from 7 a.m. December 14, 2015 until 12 p.m. March 2, 2016.
The Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge provides a vertical clearance of 19.9 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft and will not be significantly impacted. The drawbridge will open if at least 24-hours advance notice is given and will close for up to 120 hours provided 72-hours advance notice is given to the USCG District Eight Western Rivers Bridge Branch. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Clinton Railroad Drawbridge across the Mississippi River, mile 518.0, at Clinton, Iowa. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner time to perform preventative maintenance that is essential to the continued safe operation of the drawbridge. Maintenance is scheduled in the winter when there is less impact on navigation; instead of scheduling work in the summer, when river traffic increases. This deviation allows the bridge to open on signal if at least 24-hours advance notice is given. It further allows the bridge to remain closed for up to 120 hours in duration occasionally between January 4, 2016 and February 19, 2016 to replace larger bridge components as long as 72-hours notice is given to the USCG District Eight Western Rivers Bridge Branch.
This deviation is effective from 5 p.m., December 15, 2015 until 9 a.m., on March 1, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, (USCG-2015-0975) is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2378, email
The Union Pacific Railroad requested a temporary deviation for the Clinton Railroad Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 518.0, at Clinton, Iowa to open on signal if at least 24-hours advance notice is given for 76 days from 5 p.m., December 15, 2015 to 9 a.m., March 1, 2016 for scheduled maintenance on the bridge. This deviation further allows the bridge to remain closed for up to 120 hours in
The Clinton Railroad Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that the drawbridge shall open on signal.
There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River. The bridge cannot open in case of emergency.
The Clinton Railroad Drawbridge provides a vertical clearance of 18.7 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft and will not be significantly impacted. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 29 chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). This action requires persons who intend to manufacture (including import) or process any of the chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit the activity before it occurs.
This final rule is effective February 2, 2016.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0390, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this proposed rule. 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:
• Manufacturers (including importers) or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance to a proposed or final rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
EPA is finalizing SNURs, under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for 29 chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. This final rule requires persons who intend to manufacture or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.
In the
For the substance submitted as PMN P-14-72, EPA received a comment from the PMN submitter requesting review of a screening hydrolysis study on the PMN substance (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Test Guideline 111). The commenter suggested that this study would aid in understanding the fate of the chemical substance and lead to a decision by EPA to rescind the significant new use designation of a 3 parts per billion (ppb) surface water concentration limit contained in that proposed SNUR. EPA completed its review and has determined that while the study satisfies the screening level stage of the OECD 111 test protocol, it is not the full OECD 111 study as it does not measure the hydrolysis products of the PMN chemical substance. The purpose of OECD 111 is to determine (1) the rate of hydrolysis of the test substance as a function of pH and (2) the identity or nature and rates of formation and decline of hydrolysis products to which organisms may be
As stated in the proposed rule, EPA determined that the results of a ready biodegradability test with product-specific chemical analytics to validate the degradation products (including intermediate products) and the rates of degradation (including intermediate degradation rates) and a hydrolysis as a function of pH and temperature test would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance P-14-72. Without additional data identifying the hydrolysis products EPA continues to have concerns for toxicity at surface water concentrations as low as 3 ppb. As a result, EPA is finalizing the SNUR as proposed and has determined that additional information is still necessary in order to determine whether or to what extent hydrolysis products may be of concern to aquatic organisms, which was the basis for the original direct final SNUR of October 27, 2014. Tier 3 of OECD Test Guideline 111, the identification of hydrolysis products, could be conducted to better understand those products. The results of this full hydrolysis study on PMN substance P-14-72 would then inform the need for further recommended testing, including aquatic toxicity or ready biodegradability testing.
EPA received comments from the PMN submitter of the remaining 28 chemicals in the proposed rule. These chemicals were submitted as three consolidated PMNs: P-14-89 through P-14-92, P-14-158, P-14-159, P-14-161, P-14-162, P-14-163, P-14-173, P-14-175 through P-14-188, and P-14-190 through P-14-193. The commenter stated that the Agency had changed its regulatory decision on these PMN substances in an arbitrary and capricious manner, from a SNUR with the significant new use defined as uses other than as described in the PMNs to one with the significant new use defined as any release of the PMN substances to surface waters resulting in the quotient from the equation provided in 40 CFR 721.90 exceeding a certain surface water concentration listed in the SNUR. Further, the commenter claimed that a SNUR for water releases (or a limit on water concentration) presents an analytical and record-keeping burden on customers for the intended PMN end uses of mineral flotation products and surfactants in asphalt emulsions that will cause the customers to instead select other less-environmentally beneficial products. The PMN submitter cited its practice of environmentally-beneficial reuse and recycling in the manufacture of these PMN substances starting with byproducts and other waste streams from industrial processes. The commenter also noted that there is no incentive to conduct any testing to address the Agency's aquatic toxicity concerns, because the PMN substances are expected to exhibit some aquatic toxicity and such results may only result in an adjustment of the water concentration levels while the analytical and record-keeping burden remains.
EPA examined the comments on these 28 chemicals and has decided to modify the proposed SNURs. EPA has determined that any manufacturing, processing or use of the substances
EPA also received comments on the proposed SNUR for the chemical substance that is the subject of PMN P-13-793. EPA is deferring action on that substance to a later date, and intends to respond to those comments and issue a final SNUR at that time.
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors, listed in Unit IV. of this rule. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in § 721.5.
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the final rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities for which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the
During review of the PMNs 29 chemical substances which were the subject of PMNs P-14-72, P-14-89, P-14-90, P-14-91, P-14-92, P-14-158, P-14-159, P-14-161, P-14-162, P-14-163, P-14-173, P-14-175, P-14-176, P-14-177, P-14-178, P-14-179, P-14-180, P-14-181, P-14-182, P-14-183, P-14-184, P-14-185, P-14-186, P-14-187, P-14-188, P-14-190, P-14-191, P-14-192, and P-14-193, EPA determined that one or more of the criteria of concern established at § 721.170 were met. For additional discussion of the rationale for the SNUR on this chemical, see Units II., IV., and V. of the proposed rule.
EPA is issuing final SNURs for 29 chemical substances described above to achieve the following objectives with
• EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.
• EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.
• EPA will be able to regulate prospective manufacturers or processors of a listed chemical substance before the described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs, provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7.
Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet at
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substances listed in this final rule, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.
If uses begun after the proposed rule was published were considered ongoing rather than new, any person could defeat the SNUR by initiating the significant new use before the final rule was issued. Therefore EPA has designated the date of publication of the proposed rule as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. Consult the
Any person who began commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances identified in this rule for any of the significant new uses designated in the proposed SNUR after the date of publication of the proposed SNUR, must stop that activity before the effective date of the final rule. Persons who ceased those activities will have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until the notice review period, including any extensions, expires, before engaging in any activities designated as significant new uses. If a person were to meet the conditions of advance compliance under 40 CFR 721.45(h), the person would be considered to have met the requirements of the final SNUR for those activities.
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require the development of any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. The two exceptions are:
1. Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).
2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section 5(b)(2)).
In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section 5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see § 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing.
Recommended testing that would address the criteria of concern of § 721.170 can be found in Unit IV. of the proposed rule. Descriptions of tests are provided only for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection.
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
• Potential benefits of the chemical substances.
• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.
According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in § 720.50. SNUNs must be on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in §§ 721.25 and 720.40. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA evaluated the potential costs of SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances in the rule. The Agency's complete Economic Analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0390.
This final rule establishes SNURs for chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
According to PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.
On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601
1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.
This final rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit VIII. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:
• A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
• Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this final rule. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This final rule does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this final rule.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.
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), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.
This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 135
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved].
(3) The significant new uses for any use other than as a surfactant in asphalt emulsions:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved].
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved].
(3) The significant new uses for any use other than as additives in mineral flotation products and as chemical intermediates:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved].
(3) The significant new uses for any use other than as flotation additives in mineral processing:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correction.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the
This action is effective December 28, 2015.
Ms. Sharon Nizich, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2825; facsimile number: (919) 541-5450; email address:
The EPA published a document in the
In rule FR Doc. 2015-25724 published on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65470), make the following corrections:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule.
This final rule will extend enhanced funding for Medicaid eligibility systems as part of a state's mechanized claims processing system, and will update conditions and standards for such systems, including adding to and updating current Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) conditions and standards. These changes will allow states to improve customer service and support the dynamic nature of Medicaid eligibility, enrollment, and delivery systems.
Victoria Guarisco (410) 786-0265, for issues related to administrative questions.
Carrie Feher (410) 786-8905, for issues related to the regulatory impact analysis.
Christine Gerhardt (410) 786-0693 or Martin Rice (410) 786-2417, for general questions.
This final rule will revise the regulatory definition of Medicaid mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems to include Medicaid eligibility and enrollment (E&E) systems, which would make available for E&E systems the enhanced federal financial participation (FFP) specified in section 1903(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (the Act) on an ongoing basis. Enhanced FFP will be available, under certain circumstances, for costs of such systems at a 90 percent federal match rate for design, development and installation (DDI) activities, and at a 75 percent federal match rate for maintenance and operations (M&O) activities. In addition to lifting the time limit that currently applies to the inclusion of E&E systems in the definition of mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems, we proposed changes to the standards and conditions applicable to such systems to access enhanced funding. We also solicited comment on new approaches to systems development, the inclusion of Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) software at a 90 percent matched cost, acquisition approvals and MMIS certification. Specifically, we are publishing new definitions for “Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS),” “open source,” “proprietary,” “service,” “shared services,” “Software-as-a-Service (SaaS),” and “module.”
On April 16, 2015, (80 FR 20455), we proposed changes to §§ 433.110, 433.111, 433.112, 433.116, 433.119, and 433.120. These changes provide for the 90 percent enhanced FFP for DDI activities for E&E systems to continue on an ongoing basis. These proposed changes would also allow the states to complete fully modernized E&E systems and will support the dynamics of national Medicaid enrollment and delivery system needs. These changes would further set forth additional criteria for the submission, review, and approval of Advance Planning Documents (APDs).
In addition, we proposed changes to provisions within 45 CFR part 95, subpart F, § 95.611. These changes align all Medicaid IT requirements with existing policy for Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) pertaining to prior approvals when states release acquisition solicitation documents or execute contracts above certain threshold amounts. Lastly, we proposed to amend § 95.611(a)(2) by removing the reference to 45 CFR 1355.52, which references enhanced funding for Title IV-E programs. Enhanced funding for Title IV-E programs expired in 1997.
Section 1903(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act provides for FFP at the rate of 90 percent for state expenditures for the DDI of mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) determines are likely to provide more efficient, economical and effective administration of the state plan. In addition, section 1903(a)(3)(B) of the Act provides for FFP at the rate of 75 percent for state expenditures for M&O of such systems.
In a final rule published October 13, 1989 (54 FR 41966), we revised the definition of a mechanized claims processing and information retrieval system at § 433.111(b) to provide that eligibility determination systems
We published a final rule entitled, “Federal Funding for Medicaid Eligibility Determination and Enrollment Activities” on April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21949-21975) that temporarily reversed the 1989 rule. We explained that this reversal was in response to changes made by the Affordable Care Act that required sweeping changes in Medicaid E&E systems and removed certain linkages between Medicaid eligibility determinations and eligibility determinations made by other federal-state programs, as well as changes in Medicaid eligibility and business processes that have occurred since our 1989 final rule to integrate eligibility and claims processing systems. The reversal was temporary to address the immediate need for eligibility system redesign to coordinate with the overall claims processing and reporting systems. Specifically, in the April 19, 2011 final rule (76 FR 21950), we included eligibility determination systems in the definition of mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems in § 433.111(b)(3). We also provided that the enhanced FFP would be available at the 90 percent rate for DDI or enhancement of E&E systems and at the 75 percent rate for M&Os of such systems, to the extent that the E&E systems were developed on or after April 19, 2011, operational by December 31, 2015, and met all standards for such systems. Under that rule, the 90 percent enhanced matching rate for system development is available through calendar year (CY) 2015 for state expenditures on E&E systems that meet specific standards and conditions, and the 75 percent match for M&Os is available for systems that meet specific standards and conditions before the end of CY 2015, as long as those systems are in operation.
In the April 19, 2011 final rule (76 FR 21950), under the authority of sections 1903(a)(3)(A)(i) and 1903(a)(3)(B) of the Act, we codified the conditions at § 433.112(b) that must be met by the states for Medicaid technology investments including traditional claims processing systems, as well as eligibility systems, to be eligible for the enhanced funding match. We also issued subregulatory guidance, “Medicaid IT Supplement Version 1.0; Enhanced Funding Requirements: Seven Conditions and Standards,” in April 2011 that outlined in greater detail the seven new standards and conditions for enhanced funding.
As explained in more detail below, we proposed to make permanent the inclusion of E&E systems in the definition of mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems, and to consequently extend the availability of enhanced FFP. We proposed to define a state Medicaid E&E system as the system of software and hardware used to process applications, renewals, and updates from Medicaid applicants and beneficiaries. In part, this change reflects a better understanding of the complexity of the required E&E system redesign based on our experience with states since finalizing the April 29, 2011 regulation, and an appreciation of the need for E&E systems to operate as an integral part of the mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems using a standard Medicaid Information Technology Architecture (MITA).
We previously expected that fundamental changes to state systems would be completed well before December 31, 2015. It is now clear that additional improvements would benefit states and the federal government. It is also clear that such systems are integral to the operation of the state's overall mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems and must be designed and operated as a coordinated part of such systems. Without recognition as an integral part of such systems, and without ongoing enhanced federal funding, state Medicaid E&E systems are likely to become out of date and would not be able to coordinate with, and further the purposes of, the overall mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems.
Since 2011, we have worked with the states on the DDI of modernized Medicaid and CHIP E&E systems, supported by the enhanced FFP, to achieve the technical functionality necessary for the implementation of the new eligibility and renewal policies on January 1, 2014. In December 2012, we identified critical success factors (CSFs) in order for the states to demonstrate operational readiness, including: Ability to accept a single, streamlined application; ability to convert existing state income standards to modified adjusted gross income (MAGI); ability to convey state-specific eligibility rules to the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace (FFM), as applicable; ability to process applications based on MAGI rules; ability to accept and send application files (accounts) to and from the Marketplace; ability to respond to inquiries from the Marketplace on current Medicaid or CHIP coverage; and, ability to verify eligibility based upon electronic data sources (the Federal Data Services Hub (FDSH) or an approved alternative).
The states are in varying stages of completion of their E&E system functionality, with work still ahead to maximize automation, streamline processes, and to migrate non-MAGI Medicaid programs into the new system. In addition, the majority of the states are engaged in system integration with human services programs, further increasing efficiencies and improving the consumer experience for those seeking benefits or services from programs in addition to Medicaid.
The response to our proposed rule indicated a need for the development of supporting policy. The responses also expressed the desire from stakeholders and partners to have further input into the policy development and implementation process. Following the effective date of this final rule, we intend to issue subregulatory guidance in the form of a series of State Medicaid Director Letters, each to address discrete subject areas affected by this rule, such as the new conditions for enhanced funding, COTS products, new APD requirements, new MMIS certification rules and reuse. In developing that guidance, we will consider the comments that have been submitted in response to our proposed rule, and will engage our partners and stakeholders to ensure that the guidance fully addresses the issues raised and that any procedures that are included in such guidance can be appropriately implemented by all actors. This engagement may take place within already established forums, such as Technical Advisory Groups, workgroups, or conferences, but may also include focused discussions with our partners and stakeholders. We wish to acknowledge that our federal and state partners, industry representatives, beneficiary advocates, and other stakeholders have valuable experience and unique perspectives that can improve the effectiveness of this rule and the overall quality of our guidance. For this reason we will seek out support from these sources as we move forward in the development of subregulatory guidance.
The response to our proposed rule also indicated a need for an update to the State Medicaid Manual (SMM). The responses suggested collaboration to address how this final rule will be implemented. Although the SMM is not within scope of this final rule, we recognize the need to update it, especially for funding of E&E systems and IT requirements subregulatory guidance referenced above will take precedence over any obsolete content in the SMM, until this update is complete. We are investigating the best approach to re-issuing the SMM in a more accessible, searchable and easily updated format. In the interim, we will continue to point to subregulatory guidance as the official source for needed updates, and such guidance takes precedence over conflicting material in the existing SMM. We believe that § 433.112(b)(5) as written is adequate, and can be expanded upon in subregulatory guidance; therefore, we will not be revising it in this rule.
We will take these recommendations under consideration as we formulate our plan for updating the SMM.
This rule finalizes provisions set forth in the “Mechanized Claims Processing and Information Retrieval Systems (90/10)” proposed rule, published on April 16, 2015 (80 FR 20455 through 20464).
We received 54 timely responses from the public on the April 16, 2015, Medicaid Program; Mechanized Claims Processing and Information Retrieval Systems (90/10) proposed rule, (80 FR 20455 through 20464). The following sections, arranged by subject area, include a summary of the proposed revisions and the public comments received, and our responses.
We proposed to amend § 433.110 by removing paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (iii) and paragraph (b). Previously, regulations at § 433.119 indicated that we would review at least once every 3 years each system operation initially approved under § 433.114 and, based on the results of the review, reapprove it for FFP at 75 percent of expenditures if certain standards and conditions were met. The final rule published April 19, 2011 (75 FR 21905) eliminated the requirement for the scheduled triennial review. Through a drafting error in the final rule published on April 19, 2011 (75 FR 21950), the reference to the scheduled triennial performance reviews at § 433.110(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) was not deleted as intended, and we proposed to delete the references here. The Secretary retains authority to perform periodic reviews of systems receiving enhanced FFP to ensure that these systems continue to meet the requirements of section 1903(a)(3) of the Act and that they continue to provide efficient, economical, and effective administration of the state plan.
We proposed technical corrections to amend § 433.110 by removing paragraph (b) and by updating the reference to 45 CFR part 74. The proposed changes were necessary because the statutory waiver authority that supported paragraph (b) was deleted by section 4753 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33) and because 45 CFR part 74 was supplanted; first by 45 CFR part 92 in September of 2003, and then by 45 CFR part 75 in December 2014. References made to 45 CFR part 74 should have been updated at those times but were not. The Department published Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards at 45 CFR part 75 as an interim final rule at 79 FR 75871, 75889 (December 19, 2014), which supersedes HHS regulations at 45 CFR parts 74 and 92.
We proposed to amend § 433.111 to revise the definition of “mechanized claims processing and information retrieval system”, and provide new definitions for “Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) software”, “open source”, “proprietary”, “shared services”, and “MMIS Module”. We proposed to amend § 433.112(c) to provide for the 90 percent enhanced FFP for DDI activities to continue on an on-going basis. Making enhanced E&E system funding available on an on-going basis, as is the case with the 90 percent match for the MMIS systems, would allow the states to complete fully modernized systems and avoid the situation where their ability to serve consumers well is limited by outdated systems. Enhanced funding will also support the dynamic and on-going nature of national Medicaid eligibility, enrollment, delivery system, and program integrity needs. Continued enhanced funding will support the retirement of remaining legacy systems, eliminating ongoing expenses for maintaining these outdated systems. It will also achieve additional staffing and technology efficiencies over time by allowing for a more phased and iterative approach to systems development and improvement.
Our 2011 final rule limited the availability of 75 percent enhanced funding for M&Os to those E&E systems that have complied with the standards and conditions in that rule by December 31, 2015. Given our proposed modifications to 42 CFR part 433, subpart C, on-going successful performance, based upon CMS regulatory and subregulatory guidance, is a requisite for on-going receipt of the 75 percent FFP for operations and maintenance, including for any eligibility workers (
We are authorized under the Act to approve enhanced federal funding for the DDI and operation and maintenance of such mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems that are likely to provide more efficient, economical, and effective administration of the Medicaid program and to be compatible with the claims processing and information retrieval systems utilized in the administration of the Medicare program.
We implemented this authority in part under regulations at 42 CFR part 433, subpart C. This regulation provides the primary technical and funding requirements and parameters for developing and operating the state MMIS and the state Medicaid E&E systems.
We proposed to amend § 433.116, which details how MMIS are initially approved and certified to be eligible for the 75 percent FFP for operations. Specifically, we proposed that, given the modular design approach required by our 2011 regulation, certification should also be available for MMIS modules, rather than only when the entire MMIS system is completed and operational. Under existing regulations as amended in 2011, at § 433.112(b), we have already required that MMIS development be modular; the proposed change would make clear that approval, certification and funding could also be approached in a modular fashion. The states may accordingly take a phased approach, with the procurement of a module or modules occurring at different times. We also encourage a modular approach to E&E systems, although certification is not applicable to E&E systems since they are evaluated on the basis of meeting specified CSFs.
We strongly support the reusability of existing or shared components so in the case that technology products exist that can be used for MMIS or E&E, we want to encourage that by allowing FFP for the developmental costs of integrating existing or shared components as part of the MMIS or E&E systems. We clarify
We will provide a series of artifacts, supporting tools, documentation, and diagrams to the states as part of our technical assistance, monitoring, and governance of MMIS systems design and development. It is also our intent to work with the states as identified and addressed prior to the certification stage.
We received the following comments in response to our proposal to amend 42 CFR part 433:
We do not agree that this rule creates a disincentive to vendors to develop COTS products. Rather, we believe that paired with the existing regulations about software developed with federal funding, our final policies incentivize vendors to join the Medicaid IT market because more states will be willing to utilize COTS. Offering the 90 percent match for a substantial portion of states' costs related to the integration of COTS software solutions into the design of state systems will encourage more states to seek COTS software products and services, as will the requirements for modular architecture. These final policies will drive the emergence and adoption of more COTS solutions, thereby increasing broader vendor participation while protecting state and federal funding from unnecessary duplicative development.
The regulation at § 95.617(a) requires that the state have ownership rights in software or modifications designed, developed or installed with FFP. For this requirement the emphasis should be on the, software or modifications designed, developed or installed with FFP. The COTS product itself is not designed, developed or installed with FFP, but is used in a system that meets those conditions. The initial licensing fee is necessary to allow the state to design a system that uses the COTS product, and there are also development and installation costs for the modifications that enhance, customize and configure it to the state and enable it to be installed in that state's system. The COTS product itself is designed and developed by the vendor, so the state is not entitled to ownership rights to the core program, only to those elements designed for, and paid for, specifically by that state so that the COTS product can be used in the state's system. In other words, we read the requirement for a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to software referenced in § 95.617(b) to apply in this instance only to the software related to the customization, modifications and configuration of a COTS product for state use, not the core product.
For these reasons, the final rule at § 433.112(c)(2) provides for the application of the 90 percent match to the cost to procure COTS software, that is, initial licensing fees, and costs to analyze, configure, install and integrate that software into a system. The 90 percent is not for the outright purchase of the COTS product itself. If such products were purchased outright with Federal funds then the provisions at § 95.617(a) and (b) would be applicable. We note that these same principles will be used to evaluate the eligibility of SaaS for enhanced match, that is, only costs related to analysis, configuration, installation and integration will be eligible for the 90 percent match.
The regulation at § 95.617(c) provides that FFP is not available for proprietary applications developed specifically for the public assistance programs covered under this subpart. For the Title XIX, Medicaid, and Title XXI, CHIP, programs under the newly developed enterprise systems that support the Affordable Care Act, CMS is supporting only systems that function seamlessly with the health insurance marketplace, whether the federally facilitated marketplace or state-based marketplaces. As such, functionality for
In addition, we proposed to amend § 95.611(a)(2) by removing the reference to 45 CFR 1355.52. This paragraph provides prior approval requirements when states plan to acquire ADP equipment or services with FFP at an enhanced matching rate for the Title IV-D, IV-E, and XIX programs, regardless of acquisition costs. We proposed to delete the reference to the Title IV-E regulation, 45 CFR 1355.52 because enhanced funding for information systems supporting the Title IV-E program expired in 1997.
We received no comments in response to our technical amendment to § 95.611 and will finalize as proposed.
We invited comment on our intention to move to a modular certification process for MMIS, based upon the MITA business processes (
We also sought comment on the advantages and disadvantages of certifying MMIS modules, versus whole systems. We believe that certifying MMIS modules will remove the barrier to entry for many small IT solution vendors, increase the availability of certified modules in the market for the states to choose from, and create an incentive for the states to take a modular approach both in IT architecture and in procurement strategy. We solicited comments on the opportunities that a modular MMIS certification process may create as well as the challenges that might arise, including defining a finite list of MMIS modules to ensure the appropriate combinations of certification criteria are established. In response to the comments received we will issue subregulatory guidance which will specify various MMIS modules and how a modular certification process will be implemented.
We also sought comments on a model where vendors propose modules for CMS certification prior to the state installation, unrelated to the question of the state's enhanced match rate for M&Os. Many commenters agreed that Modular MMIS certification process will result in better procurements, faster time to benefit, and a rapid adoption of industry standards in Medicaid.
We received the following comments on these topics:
Regarding our proposal to pre-certify MMIS modules and then complete the certification once installed and implemented, we received many comments expressing concerns for timelines so that innovation not be
With regard to all Medicaid IT, we also sought comments on how to achieve an effective and efficient balance when approving enhanced FFP for the acquisition of open source and proprietary COTS software and information technology solutions provided in the Medicaid information technology marketplace. Section 1903(a)(3)(A) of the Act, which provides 90 percent FFP for the “design, development, or installation of such mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems” could be interpreted to include use of COTS where that solution would be the more economical and efficient approach. We proposed this approach, acknowledging that it will necessitate a refinement of policy for proprietary COTS software for § 95.617(b) to protect intellectual property. We sought comment on the inclusion of some costs related to COTS software in DDI to further encourage the states to opt for the COTS and SaaS option, currently matched at 75 percent, rather than ground-up development approaches, which are duplicative and have a potentially much larger total cost over the span of the project. We intend to address this further in future subregulatory guidance. In considering approvals for ground-up system builds we may require states to evaluate whether cost-effective and practical open source and/or proprietary COTS solutions exist and whether those solutions are feasible.
We received the following comments on this approach.
We will provide additional clarification regarding the standards and conditions applicable to E&E in the subregulatory guidance.
Currently, regulations at § 95.617(b) provide that the federal government shall have a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use and to authorize others to use for federal government purposes, software, modifications and documentation that are developed with federal support. We also sought comments on requiring that states affirmatively document and make available such software to ensure that it may be used by others.
Consistent with these requirements, and to encourage broader use and reuse of federally funded software, we also proposed at § 433.112(b)(20) and (21) that software developed with the 90
We received the following comments on proposed § 433.112(b)(20) and (21).
We conduct periodic reviews of the states' MMIS and E&E system functionality and operations. Current regulations at § 433.120 allow for reduction of FFP for system operations from 75 percent to 50 percent if the system fails to meet any or all of the standards and conditions. We proposed to allow for the FFP reduction to be tailored where appropriate to specific operational expenditures related to the subpar system component rather than only being able to apply it across all operational expenditures. We also proposed to revise current regulations that require the disallowance to be for a minimum of four quarters so that there is no defined timeframe. Furthermore, we proposed to remove the restriction on the FFP reduction occurring at least four quarters after the system was initially approved.
We received the following comments in reference to the proposals concerning FFP.
We also received the following general comments.
We solicited comments concerning the following proposed technical changes:
• § 433.110(a)(1) referred to “45 CFR part 74”. Our proposed rule replaced this citation with, “45 CFR part 92”. This final rule corrects § 433.110(a)(1) to refer to “45 CFR part 75”.
• Due to a drafting error in the April 19, 2011 rule, § 433.110(a)(2) is followed by paragraphs (ii) and (iii) which are unrelated to (a)(2). The intent of the 2011 rule was to remove these paragraphs along with the requirement for a triennial review of an MMIS. In this final rule paragraphs (ii) and (iii) are removed from § 433.110(a)(2).
• § 433.110 is amended to remove paragraph (b) because the statutory waiver authority upon which this provision was based was deleted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, sec. 4753.
• § 433.116(c) referenced the conditions (1) through (16) under § 433.112(b). Since new conditions have been added to § 433.112(b) we updated § 433.116(c) to reference the conditions (1) through (22) under § 433.112(b).
• § 433.119 required compliance with § 433.112(b)(1), (3), (4), and (7) through (16). This final rule reflects the newly added conditions at § 433.112(b)(1) through (22).
We received no comments on these technical corrections to part 433 and are finalizing these as proposed.
In the final rule titled “State Systems Advance Planning Document (APD) Process”, (75 FR 66319, October 28, 2010), § 95.611 was modified to include an acquisition threshold for prior approval of the state costs at the regular matching rate but noted that equipment or services at the enhanced matching rate necessitated prior approval regardless of the cost. We proposed to amend § 95.611 to align all Medicaid IT
For noncompetitive acquisitions, including contract amendments, when the resulting contract is anticipated to exceed $1,000,000, the state will be required to submit a sole source justification in addition to the acquisition document. The sole source justification can be provided as part of the APD.
If the state does not opt for an exemption or submittal of an Acquisition Checklist for the contract, prior to the execution, the state will be required to submit the contract when it is anticipated to exceed the following thresholds, unless specifically exempted by CMS: Software application development—$6,000,000 or more (competitive) and $1,000,000 or more (noncompetitive); Hardware and COTS software—$20,000,000 or more (competitive) and $1,000,000 or more (noncompetitive); Operations and Software Maintenance acquisitions combined with hardware, COTS or software application development—the thresholds stated in § 95.611(b)(1)(v)(A) and (B) apply.
For contract amendments within the scope of the base contract, unless specifically exempted by the Department, prior to execution of the contract amendment involving contract cost increases which cumulatively exceed 20 percent of the base contract cost.
The following is a summary of the comments we received regarding the proposed changes to part 95.
In addition, we proposed to amend § 95.611(a)(2) by removing the reference to 45 CFR 1355.52. This paragraph provides prior approval requirements when states plan to acquire ADP equipment or services with FFP at an enhanced matching rate for the Title IV-D, IV-E, and XIX programs, regardless of acquisition costs. We proposed to delete the reference to the Title IV-E regulation, 45 CFR 1355.52 because enhanced funding for information systems supporting the Title IV-E program expired in 1997.
We received no comments in response to our technical amendment to § 95.611 and will finalize as proposed.
For the most part, this final rule incorporates the provisions of the proposed rule. Those provisions of this final rule that differ from the proposed rule are as follows:
• In § 433.110 of the proposed rule, we inadvertently proposed to remove and reserve paragraph (b). Therefore, in this final rule, we are not finalizing this change.
• In § 433.111(b), we expanded the definition of mechanized claims processing and information retrieval system to include language consistent with the concept of modularity and to elaborate on the functionalities included in such systems. We included in the revised definition a concept of “System of systems”, to emphasize that such a system may consist of multiple, interoperable subsystems, or modules to support MMIS and E&E. Note that in this final rule the words “subsystem” and “module” have the same meaning.
• In § 433.111(b), we deleted “non-proprietary” to remove this limitation from the description of Mechanized Claims Processing and Information Retrieval System modules.
• In § 433.111(b)(1)(i) through (iii), we substituted the word “module(s)” for “subsystem(s)” to be consistent with our modular approach.
• In § 433.111(b)(2)(i), we added clarifying language to indicate that E&E systems are used to determine eligibility for enrollment.
• In § 433.111(b)(2)(ii), we added language to clarify that MMIS are used to perform other management and administrative functions, to reference the MMIS Certification Toolkit, and to clarify that this is applicable in fee for service, managed care and ASO environments.
• In § 433.111(f), we added a definition of “Service.”
• In § 433.111(g), we slightly altered the definition of “shared service” to clarify that such services are available to other entities, including states, for use, and may include SaaS.
• In § 433.111(h), we replaced “MMIS Module” with the term “module” to broaden the meaning to apply to either MMIS or E&E.
• In § 433.111(i), we deleted the sentence that excluded software developed for public assistance programs from the definition of COTS software, to permit their inclusion, if appropriate.
• In § 433.111(j), we have added a definition of SaaS.
• In § 433.112(b)(19), we added that key state personnel must be identified by name.
• In § 433.112(b)(20), we struck “MMIS” to make the condition more broadly applicable to both MMIS and E&E.
• In § 433.112(b)(21), we struck “MMIS” to make the condition more broadly applicable to both MMIS and E&E.
• In § 433.116(j), we modified this paragraph to remove the compliance date of December 31, 2015.
While this rule sets out information collection requirements, the rule does not contain any new or revised reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) and its implementing regulations (5 CFR part 1320) do not apply.
Experience with the Affordable Care Act implementation has shown that Medicaid eligibility policies and business processes benefit from continued updating and strengthening. System transformations are needed to apply new rules to adjudicate eligibility for the program; enroll millions of newly eligible individuals through multiple channels; renew eligibility for existing enrollees; operate seamlessly with the Health Insurance Marketplaces (“Marketplaces”); participate in a system to verify information from applicants electronically; incorporate a streamlined application used to apply for multiple sources of coverage and financial assistance; and produce notices and communications to applicants and beneficiaries concerning the process, outcomes, and their rights to dispute or appeal.
We wish to ensure that our technology investments result in a high degree of interaction and interoperability to maximize value and minimize burden and costs on providers and beneficiaries. Thus, we are committed to providing ongoing 90 percent FFP for DDI or 75 percent FFP for M&Os of such systems. We have provided that states must commit to a set of standards and conditions to receive the enhanced FFP. This enhanced FFP reduces the financial burden on states to 10 percent of the costs compared to the 50 percent financial burden currently in place and ensures that states continue to utilize current technology development and deployment practices and produce reliable business outputs and outcomes.
We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). We estimate that this rulemaking is “economically significant” as measured by the $100 million threshold, and hence also a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. Accordingly, we have prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis that to the best of our ability presents the costs and benefits of the rulemaking.
1. While it is difficult to predict state behavior, we believe all states will comply with the standards and conditions in this regulation to receive the 90 percent FFP, and have assumed that for the purpose of these estimates.
To meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories must build new E&E systems or modernize existing E&E systems. Most states have added new functionalities to interface with the Marketplaces and implemented new adaptability standards and conditions (such as incorporation of mandated eligibility categories).
There are currently 9 states that have relatively new E&E systems and do not need replacement of whole systems, but are instead making modular improvements and upgrades. We assumed that the cost per state for the 9 states improving rather than replacing systems would be $3.8 million on average, for a total of $34 million FFP. For these 9 states, we believe upgrades would occur even in the absence of this rule, during the initial 5 years of enhanced funding. We believe that most states have not had sufficient time to complete the total system replacement for both MAGI and non-MAGI eligibility functionality, as we believe that new system builds will take 4-6 years. We assume that an additional 19 states will retire their legacy E&E systems with ongoing 90 percent FFP for design and development within 2-3 years. We estimated that the average cost savings for each state will be $16.6 million per year. We expect all 19 states to eliminate their legacy E&E systems by 2019; therefore, the total cost savings by 2019 for those 19 states will be about $368 million. Based on previous spending trends, we assumed that those 9 states with new systems account for 15 percent of E&E spending and the 28 states that we anticipate retiring their legacy E&E systems by 2025 account for 55 percent of E&E spending. We believe that by eliminating 28 legacy systems, we reduce M&O costs by maintaining only one E&E system per state. Eventually, we assume that all states will replace their current E&E legacy system(s) using ongoing 90 percent FFP. We expect almost all states to eliminate their legacy E&E systems by 2025, adding about $3 billion in cost savings. To calculate the impact of the regulation, we assumed that new E&E systems on average would cost $50 million over 3 years for each state ($15 million federal costs at 90 percent FFP per year).
States will see a decrease in their net state share due to the enhanced federal match for eligibility systems and states will also realize benefits by putting in place the set of standards and conditions articulated in this final regulation.
The state net costs from FY 2016 through 2025 for implementing the regulation on eligibility systems is approximately −$1.1 billion. This includes approximately $572 million in state costs for system design and development, offset by lower anticipated M&Os costs. These costs represent only the state share.
Similar to the federal budget impact, we expect to see higher savings achieved by states over the 10-year budget window due to the increased savings by moving away from operating two or more systems, and replacing legacy systems.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Since this rule would primarily affect states, which are not considered small entities, the Secretary has determined that this final rule will not be likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we have not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a metropolitan statistical area and has fewer than 100 beds. This rule will not have a significant impact on hospitals. Therefore, the Secretary has determined that this final rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2015, that is approximately $144 million. This rule does not mandate expenditures by the state governments, local governments, tribal governments, or the private sector. This rule provides that states can receive enhanced FFP if states ensure that the mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems, including those that perform eligibility determination and enrollment activities, as well as the Medicaid portion of integrated eligibility determination systems, meet with certain conditions including migrating to the MITA framework and meeting certain performance requirements. This is a voluntary activity and the rule imposes no substantial mandates on states.
2. The federal net costs from FY 2016 through 2025 of implementing the regulation on eligibility systems is approximately $3 billion. This includes approximately $5.1 billion in increased federal costs for system design and development, offset by lower anticipated M&Os costs. These costs represent only the federal share. Uncertainty exists because we are unsure of the rate of adoption for states to make the changes in this final rule.
We considered a number of ways in which application of the standards and conditions, including increased use of MITA, could result in savings; however, as no states have yet reached MITA maturity, it is difficult to predict the savings that may accrue over any certain timeframe. These areas include the following:
•
We assume that savings associated with reusable technology could be achieved in both the development and operation of new systems.
•
•
•
There are uncertainties regarding our assumptions, including state behavior, and the associated cost estimates for states implementing new systems. However, we have based our assumptions on data on states' previous behavior, spending and APDs over the last 4 years. It is important to point out that we believe that systems transformation is necessary to meet the vision of the Affordable Care Act and consequently, these costs provide for efficient systems that in the end would provide for more efficient and effective administration of the state plan.
We considered as an alternative to our rule to not continue to provide enhanced match for state eligibility systems builds after December 2015, and to not update federal standards and conditions for Medicaid IT development. We also considered an extension for a 2 or 3 year timeline but deduced that it was both insufficient for states to effectively transition out of their legacy systems and to complete human services integration in the new shared eligibility system. Furthermore, this assumes that all significant policy changes that trigger the need for IT updates were limited to those in the Affordable Care Act, however systems reforms are an on-going facet of eligibility policy with an accompanying ongoing financial burden. A limited extension would also ignore that states that already modernized and did not replace their systems starting in 2011 will eventually need to do so to maintain system integrity and modernity sometime after a 2 or 3-year extension. Absent an ongoing extension, states would receive the traditional 50 percent FFP for reasonable administrative expenditures for designing, developing, installing, or enhancing Medicaid eligibility determination systems. Similarly, states would receive 50 percent FFP for expenditures associated with the M&O of such systems. However, states would have to continue to meet the requirements of federal legislation. Since the Affordable Care Act significantly alters Medicaid eligibility, we believe that treating E&E systems as an integral part of mechanized claims processing system and information retrieval systems is consistent with the federal statute. This would have the effect of continuing the higher federal matching rate, which would provide states additional resources to meet this challenge. In addition, the federal guidance in the form of clearer federal standards and conditions would facilitate the design, development, implementation, and operation of IT and systems projects that fully support the Medicaid program, including the new responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act. Supporting the transformation of Medicaid E&E systems through these enhanced funding and clearer federal guidelines will also reduce duplication of systems and overall system costs.
Whenever a rule is considered a significant rule under Executive Order 12866, we are required to develop an Accounting Statement. We have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of this rule. Tables 3 through 5 provide our best estimate of the net costs as a result of the changes presented in this rule.
We received the following comment about this analysis:
We considered a number of ways in which application of the standards and conditions, including increased use of MITA, could result in savings. We see increased investments in DDI somewhat offset by lower costs over the 10-year budget window due to the increased savings to operating one E&E system and eliminating legacy systems. The costs shift from mostly 90 percent FFP for design, development, and installation to 75 percent FFP for M&Os over time.
The federal net costs from FY 2016 through 2025 of implementing the regulation on eligibility systems is approximately $3 billion. This includes approximately $5.1 billion in increased federal costs for system design and development, offset by lower anticipated M&Os costs. The state net costs from FY 2016 through 2025 for implementing the regulation on eligibility systems is approximately −$1.1 billion. This includes approximately $572 million in state costs for system design and development, offset by lower anticipated M&Os costs.
There are uncertainties regarding our assumptions, including state behavior, and the associated cost estimates for states implementing new systems. However, we have based our assumptions on data on states' previous behavior, spending and APDs over the last 4 years. It is important to point out that we believe that systems transformation is necessary to meet the vision of the Affordable Care Act and consequently, these costs are necessary and would provide for efficient systems that in the end would provide for more efficient and effective administration of the state plan.
The analysis above, together with the remainder of this preamble, provides a Regulatory Impact Analysis. The reason to refer to other portions of the preamble is that they include sections, such as the statutory authority and purpose that are required but are not normally included in the impact analysis section.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Administrative practice and procedure, Child support, Claims, Grant programs—health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Claims, Computer technology, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
Section 1102 of the Social Security Act, (42 U.S.C. 1302).
(b) “Mechanized claims processing and information retrieval system” means:
(1) “Mechanized claims processing and information retrieval system” means the system of software and/or hardware used to process claims for medical assistance and to retrieve and produce service utilization and management information required by the Medicaid single state agency and Federal government for program administration and audit purposes. It may include modules of hardware, software, and other technical capabilities that are used by the Medicaid Single State Agency to manage, monitor, and administer the Medicaid enterprise, including transaction processing, information management, and reporting and data analytics.
(2) “Mechanized claims processing and information retrieval system” includes a “System of Systems.” Under this definition all modules or systems developed to support a Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) and Eligibility and Enrollment (E&E) may be implemented as discrete, independent, interoperable elements. Use of a System of Systems requires interoperability between the systems.
(i) The system consists of—
(A) Required modules specified by the Secretary.
(B) Required changes to the system or required module that are specified by the Secretary.
(C) Approved enhancements to the system or module.
(ii) A “Mechanized claims processing and information retrieval system” include—s—
(A) An Eligibility and Enrollment (E&E) System which is used to process applications from Medicaid or CHIP applicants and beneficiaries to determine eligibility for enrollment in the Medicaid or CHIP programs, as well as change in circumstance updates and renewals; and
(B) A Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) which is used to process claims for Medicaid payment from providers of medical care and services furnished to beneficiaries under the medical assistance program and to perform other functions necessary for economic and efficient operations, management, monitoring, and administration of the Medicaid program. The pertinent business areas are those included in the MMIS Certification Toolkit, and they may be applicable to Fee-For-Service, Managed Care, or an Administrative Services Organization (ASO) model.
(d) “Open source” means software that can be used freely, changed, and shared (in modified or unmodified form) by anyone. Open source software is distributed under Open Source Initiative-approved licenses that comply with an open source framework that allows for free redistribution, provision of the source code, allowance for modifications and derived works, free and open distribution of licenses without restrictions and licenses that are technology-neutral.
(e) “Proprietary” means a closed source product licensed under exclusive legal right of the copyright holder with the intent that the licensee is given the right to use the software only under certain conditions, and restricted from other uses, such as modification, sharing, studying, redistribution, or reverse engineering.
(f) “Service” means a self-contained unit of functionality that is a discretely invokable operation. Services can be combined to provide the functionality of a large software application.
(g) “Shared Service” means the use of a service, including SaaS, by one part of an organization or group, including states, where that service is also made available to other entities of the organization, group or states. Thus the funding and resourcing of the service is shared and the providing department effectively becomes an internal service provider.
(h) “Module” means a packaged, functional business process or set of processes implemented through software, data, and interoperable interfaces that are enabled through design principles in which functions of a complex system are partitioned into discrete, scalable, reusable components.
(i) “Commercial Off the Shelf” (COTS) software means specialized software (which could be a system, subsystem or module) designed for specific applications that is available for sale or lease to other users in the commercial marketplace, and that can be used with little or no modification.
(j) “Software-as-a-Service” (SaaS) means a software delivery model in which software is managed and licensed by its vendor-owner on a pay-for-use or subscription basis, centrally hosted, on-demand, and common to all users.
(b) CMS will approve the E&E or claims system described in an APD if certain conditions are met. The conditions that a system must meet are:
(12) The agency ensures alignment with, and incorporation of, industry standards adopted by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT in accordance with 45 CFR part 170, subpart B: The HIPAA privacy, security and transaction standards; accessibility standards established under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, or standards that provide greater accessibility for individuals with disabilities, and compliance with Federal civil rights laws; standards adopted by the Secretary under section 1104 of the Affordable Care Act; and standards and protocols adopted by the Secretary under section 1561 of the Affordable Care Act.
(16) The system supports seamless coordination and integration with the Marketplace, the Federal Data Services Hub, and allows interoperability with health information exchanges, public health agencies, human services programs, and community organizations providing outreach and enrollment assistance services as applicable.
(17) For E&E systems, the State must have delivered acceptable MAGI-based system functionality, demonstrated by performance testing and results based on critical success factors, with limited mitigations and workarounds.
(18) The State must submit plans that contain strategies for reducing the operational consequences of failure to meet applicable requirements for all major milestones and functionality.
(19) The agency, in writing through the APD, must identify key state personnel by name, type and time commitment assigned to each project.
(20) Systems and modules developed, installed or improved with 90 percent match must include documentation of components and procedures such that the systems could be operated by a variety of contractors or other users.
(21) For software systems and modules developed, installed or improved with 90 percent match, the State must consider strategies to minimize the costs and difficulty of operating the software on alternate hardware or operating systems.
(22) Other conditions for compliance with existing statutory and regulatory requirements, issued through formal guidance procedures, determined by the Secretary to be necessary to update and ensure proper implementation of those existing requirements.
(c)(1) FFP is available at 90 percent of a State's expenditures for the design, development, installation or enhancement of an E&E system that meets the requirements of this subpart and only for costs incurred for goods and services provided on or after April 19, 2011.
(2) Design, development, installation, or enhancement costs include costs for initial licensing of commercial off the shelf (COTS) software, and the minimum necessary costs to analyze the suitability of COTS software, install, configure and integrate the COTS software, and modify non-COTS software to ensure coordination of operations. The nature and extent of such costs must be expressly described in the approved APD.
(b) CMS will approve enhanced FFP for system operations if the conditions specified in paragraphs (c) through (i) of this section are met.
(c) The conditions of § 433.112(b)(1) through (22) must be met at the time of approval.
(j) Beginning, and no earlier than, April 19, 2011, FFP is available at 75 percent of a State's expenditures for the operation of an E&E system that meets the requirements of this subpart. FFP is not available for E&E systems that do not meet the standards and conditions.
(a)* * *
(1) The system meets the requirements of § 433.112(b)(1), (3), (4), and (7) through (22).
(a) If CMS determines after the reapproval review that the system no longer meets the conditions for reapproval in § 433.119, CMS may reduce FFP for certain expenditures for system operations.
(b) CMS may reduce FFP from 75 percent to 50 percent for expenditures related to the operations of non-compliant functionality or system components.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 45 CFR part 95 as set forth below:
5 U.S.C 301, 42 U.S.C. 622(b), 629b(a), 652(a), 652(d), 654A, 671(a), 1302, and 1396a(a).
(a)* * *
(2) A State must obtain prior approval from the Department which is reflected in a record, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, when the State plans to acquire ADP equipment or services with proposed FFP at the enhanced matching rate subject to one of the following:
(i) If authorized by § 205.35 of this title and part 307 of this title, regardless of the acquisition cost.
(ii) If authorized by 42 CFR part 433, subpart C, if the contract is anticipated to or will exceed $500,000.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Technical amendments.
NASA is making technical amendments to the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to provide needed editorial changes.
Manuel Quinones, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, via email at
As part NASA's retrospective review of existing regulations pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, NASA conducted a review of its regulations and published a final rule in the
• Section 1852.217-71 is revised to correct the clause date from “MAY 2000” to “APR 2015.”
• Section 1852.233-70 is revised to correct the zip code and the provision date.
Government procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR part 1852 is amended as follows:
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of sculpins in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary because the 2015 initial total allowable catch of sculpins in the BSAI has been reached.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 1, 2015, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2015.
Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone
The 2015 initial total allowable catch (TAC) for sculpins in the BSAI is 3,995 metric tons as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2015 initial TAC of sculpins in the BSAI has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that sculpins caught in the BSAI be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting the retention of sculpins in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 30, 2015.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of proposed rule.
The EPA is withdrawing its proposed rule to disapprove Maryland's June 4, 2007 ozone attainment demonstration for the Baltimore Area. This withdrawal action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.
The proposed rule published on May 8, 2009 (74 FR 21594), regarding the ozone attainment demonstration portion of Maryland's June 4, 2007 comprehensive SIP revision request for the Baltimore Area, is withdrawn as of December 4, 2015.
EPA has established docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0931 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
Maria A. Pino, 215-814-2181, or by email at
On May 8, 2009 (74 FR 21594), EPA published a proposed rule to disapprove the ozone attainment demonstration portion of a comprehensive State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request submitted by the State of Maryland on June 4, 2007 to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the Baltimore moderate nonattainment area (Baltimore Area). On May 26, 2015 (80 FR 29970), EPA determined that the Baltimore Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, thereby suspending the area's obligations to submit an attainment demonstration and other planning requirements related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for as long as the area continues to attain the standard. On October 20, 2015, the State of Maryland withdrew the attainment demonstration (including modeling and weight of evidence), 2009 attainment year inventory, contingency measures for attainment, and 2009 transportation conformity budgets contained in Maryland's June 4, 2007 SIP revision request.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of Columbia (the District). This revision pertains to the infrastructure requirement for interstate transport pollution with respect to the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO
Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0750 by one of the following methods:
Emlyn Velez-Rosa, (215) 814-2038, or by email at
On June 6, 2014, the District Department of Energy and the Environment (DDOEE) submitted a SIP revision addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2010 NO
Whenever new or revised NAAQS are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements, including, but not limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make infrastructure SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof).” Infrastructure SIP submissions should provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements. EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Infrastructure Guidance).
Additionally, EPA has provided in previous rulemaking actions a detailed discussion of the Agency's approach in reviewing infrastructure SIPs, including the Agency's longstanding interpretation of requirements for section 110(a)(1) and (2), the interpretation that the CAA allows states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements in section 110(a)(2) for a specific NAAQS, and the interpretation that EPA has the ability to act on separate elements of 110(a)(2) for a NAAQS in separate rulemaking actions.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires state SIPs to address any emissions activity in one state that contributes significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or conjointly as the “good neighbor” provision of the CAA. Specifically, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires the elimination of upwind state emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state.
On June 6, 2014, the District through DDOEE submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010 NO
The District's June 6, 2014 transport submittal includes emissions inventory and air quality data that concludes that the District does not have sources that can contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2010 NO
EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the District's June 6, 2014 SIP revision addressing interstate transport for the 2010 NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, addressing the District's interstate transport requirements under the CAA for the 2010 NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice of proposed changes and request for comments.
The Legal Services Corporation (“LSC”) Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) intends to revise the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015, and thereafter and is soliciting public comment on the proposed changes. The proposed revisions primarily affect certain regulatory requirements to be audited pursuant to LSC regulations. In addition, the LSC OIG is proposing to include for audit certain regulatory requirements which impact recipient staff's involvement in the outside practice of law. Finally, suggested audit procedures for several regulations have been updated and revised for clarification and simplification purposes.
All comments and recommendations must be received by January 4, 2016.
The proposed LSC OIG Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients is available at
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Anthony M. Ramirez,
The purpose of the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients is to set forth the LSC regulatory requirements to be audited by the Independent Public Accountants (“IPA”) as part of the recipients' annual financial statement audit and to provide suggested guidance to the IPAs in accomplishing this task. Pursuant to 45 CFR part 1641, IPAs are subject to suspension, removal, and/or debarment for not following OIG audit guidance as set out in the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients. Since the last revision of the LSC OIG's Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients, LSC has significantly revised and updated several regulations. These revisions and updates, including the corresponding changes to suggested audit guidance provided to the IPAs, must be reflected accurately in the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients. A summary of the proposed changes follows.
The LSC OIG has included regulatory requirements under 45 CFR part 1604 in the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients. The proposed inclusion sets forth the requirements dealing with the permissibility of recipient staff engaged in the outside practice of law. We have proposed suggested audit guidance for use by the IPAs.
The LSC OIG made major revisions to several regulatory summaries to reflect LSC's revisions to its regulations. Revised summaries include those for 45 CFR parts 1609 (fee generating cases); 1611 (eligibility); 1614 (private attorney involvement); 1626 (restrictions on legal assistance to aliens); and to a lesser extent, 1635 (timekeeping requirement). Other summaries contain relatively minor revisions. The proposed summaries follow the existing law and LSC regulations. The proposed suggested audit procedures for each of these sections have been revised and updated to incorporate and take into consideration the regulatory changes.
The LSC OIG proposes to revise the case sampling methodology by reducing criteria utilized in the case selection process. The proposed changes are intended to clarify and simplify the process.
The LSC OIG proposes to update and revise suggested audit procedures for the regulations. The proposed updates and revisions are intended for clarification and simplification purposes and to provide added emphasis on internal controls.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our preliminary concurrence with the World Organization for Animal Health's (OIE) bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk designations for 16 regions. The OIE recognizes these regions as being of negligible risk for BSE. We are taking this action based on our review of information supporting the OIE's risk designations for these regions.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 2, 2016.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Roberta Morales, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 855-7735.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 92 subpart B, “Importation of Animals and Animal Products; Procedures for Requesting BSE Risk Status Classification With Regard To Bovines” (referred to below as the regulations), set forth the process by which the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) classifies regions for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk. Section 92.5 of the regulations provides that all countries of the world are considered by APHIS to be in one of three BSE risk categories: Negligible risk, controlled risk, or undetermined risk. These risk categories are defined in § 92.1. Any region that is not classified by APHIS as presenting either negligible risk or controlled risk for BSE is considered to present an undetermined risk. The list of those regions classified by APHIS as having either negligible risk or controlled risk can be accessed on the APHIS Web site at
Under the regulations, APHIS may classify a region for BSE in one of two ways. One way is for countries that have not received a risk classification from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) to request classification by APHIS. The other way is for APHIS to concur with the classification given to a country by the OIE.
If the OIE has classified a country as either BSE negligible risk or BSE controlled risk, APHIS will seek information to support concurrence with the OIE classification. This information may be publicly available information, or APHIS may request that countries supply the same information given to the OIE. APHIS will announce in the
In accordance with this process, we are giving notice in this document that APHIS intends to concur with the OIE risk classifications of the following countries:
•
The OIE recommendations regarding each of the above countries can be viewed at
The conclusions of the OIE scientific commission for these countries can be viewed at:
After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce our final determination regarding the BSE classification of these countries in the
7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Yreka, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC informaiton can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held December14, 2015, at 4:30 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Klamath National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, Conference Room, 1711 South Main Street, Yreka, California.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Natalie Stovall, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 530-841-4411 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is:
1. Approve prior meeting notes;
2. Update on ongoing projects;
3. Public Comment Period;
4. Review meeting schedule;
5. Proposal Reviews;
6. And schedule meeting for January
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by December 7,2015, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Natalie Stovall RAC Corrdinator, 1711 S. Main Street, Yreka, California 96097; by email to
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
On July 22, 2015, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., operator of Subzone 98A, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign Trade-Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within Subzone 98A, in Vance, Alabama.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On July 22, 2015, Festo Corporation, an operator of FTZ 46, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility in Mason, Ohio.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 9, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its
Cara Lofaro or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5720 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.
On January 4, 2005, the Department published the
Because no party submitted comments opposing the Department's
Also excluded from the scope are certain bed bases consisting of: (1) A wooden box frame, (2) three wooden cross beams and one perpendicular center wooden support beam, and (3) wooden slats over the beams. These bed bases are constructed without inner springs and/or coils and do not include a headboard, footboard, side rails, or mattress. The bed bases are imported unassembled.
The scope description below includes this language.
The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.
The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests,
The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) Seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate;
Also excluded from the scope are certain shoe cabinets 31.5-33.5 inches wide by 15.5-17.5 inches deep by 34.5-36.5 inches high. They are designed strictly to store shoes, which are intended to be aligned in rows perpendicular to the wall along which the cabinet is positioned. Shoe cabinets do not have drawers, rods, or other indicia for the storage of clothing other than shoes. The cabinets are not designed, manufactured, or offered for sale in coordinated groups or sets and are made substantially of wood, have two to four shelves inside them, and are covered by doors. The doors often have blinds that are designed to allow air circulation and release of bad odors. The doors themselves may be made of wood or glass. The depth of the shelves does not exceed 14 inches. Each shoe cabinet has doors, adjustable shelving, and ventilation holes.
Also excluded from the scope are certain bed bases consisting of: (1) A wooden box frame, (2) three wooden cross beams and one perpendicular center wooden support beam, and (3) wooden slats over the beams. These bed bases are constructed without inner springs and/or coils and do not include a headboard, footboard, side rails, or mattress. The bed bases are imported unassembled.
Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheadings 9403.50.9042 and 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “wooden . . . beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other . . . wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9042 or 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood.” Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, 9403.20.0018, or 9403.90.8041. Further, framed glass mirrors may be entered under subheading 7009.92.1000 or 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors . . . framed.” The order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Because we determine that there are changed circumstances that warrant the revocation of the
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and revocation, in part, and notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), and 19 CFR 351.222.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof (diamond sawblades) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014. The Department has preliminarily determined that certain companies covered by this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Yang Jin Chun or Bryan Hansen, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760 and (202) 482-3683, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the order is diamond sawblades and parts thereof. The diamond sawblades subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheadings 8202 to 8206 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and may also enter under 6804.21.00. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
We are rescinding the review in part with respect to Husqvarna (Hebei) Co., Ltd.
Six companies that received a separate rate in previous segments of the proceeding and are subject to this review reported that they did not have any exports of subject merchandise during the POR.
Based on the record evidence for these preliminary results, we find that Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Fengtai Tools Co., Ltd., and Jiangsu Sawing Co., Ltd., are affiliated, pursuant to sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Additionally, under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1)-(2), we preliminarily find that these companies should be considered a single entity (collectively known as the Jiangsu Fengtai Single Entity).
The Department preliminarily determines that 24 respondents are eligible to receive separate rates in this review.
Consistent with our practice, we assigned to eligible non-selected respondents the average of the weighted-average margins calculated for the two individually examined respondents as the separate rate for the preliminary results of this review.
The Department's change in policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Export price and constructed export price were calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a NME within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value was calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
The Department
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Upon issuing the final results of review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For Husqvarna (Hebei) Co., Ltd., for which the review is rescinded, the antidumping duty shall be assessed at the rate equal to the cash deposit of the estimated antidumping duty required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2). We will instruct CBP accordingly.
Pursuant to the Department's assessment practice in NME cases,
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by the companies listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment; request for comments.
NMFS announces the availability of the “Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (DPEA) for Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC).” Publication of this notice begins the official public comment period for this DPEA. The purpose of the DPEA is to evaluate, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of conducting and funding fisheries and ecosystem research in NOAA's Pacific Islands Region.
Comments and information must be received no later than January 4, 2016.
Comments on the DPEA should be addressed to: NOAA IRC, NMFS/PIFSC/Director's Office, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. #176, Honolulu, HI 96818. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
Matthew Vandersande, (808) 725-5333.
PIFSC is the research arm of NMFS in the Pacific Islands Region. PIFSC conducts research and provides scientific advice to manage fisheries and conserve protected species throughout the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including the State of Hawaii, Territory of American Samoa, Territory of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas. Research is aimed at monitoring fish stock recruitment, survival, and biological rates; abundance and geographic distribution of both pelagic and insular marine species; and providing other scientific information needed to improve our understanding of complex marine ecological processes. Primary research activities include: Mid-water trawl surveys to support assessments of pelagic stages of insular species and other mesopelagic organisms; dive surveys to conduct coral reef ecosystem assessment and monitoring; hook-and-line surveys to collect fishery life history samples and deploy telemetry tags; marine debris research and removal activities; advanced sampling technology surveys (
• No-Action/Status Quo Alternative—Conduct Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research with Scope and Protocols Similar to Past Effort.
• Preferred Alternative—Conduct Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research (New Suite of Research) with Mitigation for MMPA and ESA Compliance.
• Modified Research Alternative— Conduct Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research (New Suite of Research) with Additional Mitigation.
• No Research Alternative—No Fieldwork for Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted or Funded by PIFSC.
The first three alternatives include a program of fisheries and ecosystem research projects conducted or funded by the PIFSC as the primary federal action. Because this primary action is connected to a secondary federal action (also called a connected action under NEPA), to consider authorizing incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA, NMFS must identify as part of this evaluation “(t)he means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat.” (Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA [16 U.S.C. 1361
Committee for Purchase From People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Addition to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the service listed below from a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of the Alumni Outcomes Survey. The purpose of this survey is to better understand the long-term civic participation and career pathways of AmeriCorps Alumni, the acquisition of career skills obtained through national service and the utilization of the Education Awards and its effect on future post-secondary outcomes and career choices. The information collected is not required to be considered for or to obtain grant funding support for AmeriCorps.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Diana Epstein, 202-606-7564, or by email at
CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Information will be collected from AmeriCorps Alumni through an online survey that will be administered by a contractor on behalf of CNCS. The purpose of the survey is to better understand the long-term civic participation and career pathways of AmeriCorps alumni, the acquisition of hard and soft career skills obtained through national service, and the utilization of the Education Award and its effect on future post-secondary outcomes and career choices. In addition, the agency is interested in exploring how member outcomes vary by life stage and by different types of service experiences. This survey is also an opportunity to determine the value of data collected from alumni who are at different stages following their service year for informing policy and program decisions.
CNCS seeks to renew the current information request with revisions to the survey administered in 2015 (OMB #3045-0170). Information will be collected from a nationally representative sample of AmeriCorps
The desired number of completed surveys is 3,150.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 4, 2016.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for OMB review and comment.
EIA has submitted an information collection request to OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste, OMB Control Number 1901-0260. The proposed collection will extend Form NWPA-830G, “Appendix G—Standard Remittance Advice for Payment of Fees (including Annex A to Appendix G), which is part of the Standard Contract. Although DOE has ceased collection of the Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposal Fee, it has (through its Office of the General Counsel) directed EIA to continue activities associated with the collection and verification of net electricity generation data and estimation of the spent nuclear fuel disposal fees that would otherwise accrue from this generation.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before January 4, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.
Written comments may be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
Requests for additional information or copies of any forms and instructions should be directed to Ms. Gospodarczyk at the address listed above. The Form NWPA-830G, “Appendix G—Standard Remittance Advice for Payment of Fees,” may also be viewed here:
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
EIA, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, EIA invites the general public to comment on the following proposed Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 2, 2016. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Written comments may be sent to Jacob Bournazian, Energy Information Administration, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 or by fax at 202-586-0552 or by email at
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant Web sites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection supporting statement should be directed to Jacob Bournazian, Energy Information Administration, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, phone: 202-586-5562, email:
By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations. This feedback also provides an early warning of issues with service, or focuses attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve the accuracy of data reported on survey instruments or the delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, understanding of questions and terminology used in survey instruments, perceptions on data confidentiality and security, appropriateness and relevancy of information, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the agency's services will be unavailable.
The agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
The collections are voluntary;
The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary for initially contacting respondents and is not retained;
Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement, the design, modification, and evaluation of survey instruments, modes of data collection, and program management purposes. It is not intended for release outside of the agency (if released, the agency must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study. The information gathered will only generate qualitative type of information.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13571, Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has authorized its contractor, Avanti Corporation of Alexandria, VA, to access information which has been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).
Access to the confidential data occurred on or about November 6, 2015.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004 is available at
Under EPA contract number GS-10F-0308P order number EP-G16H-00318, contractor Avanti of 5520 Cherokee Avenue, Suite 205, Alexandria, VA, will assist EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in providing technical and administrative support for meetings related to investigation of chemicals and biotechnology products for possible regulatory or other control actions. They will also provide computer database support related to providing information on chemical regulatory actions and related policy decisions.
In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number GS-10F-0308P, order number EP-G16H-00318, Avanti will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. Avanti personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.
EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide Avanti access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters in accordance with EPA's
Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until October 31, 2020. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
Avanti personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board.
Regular meeting.
Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board (Board).
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102. Submit attendance requests via email to
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10456 Waukegan Savings Bank, Waukegan, Illinois (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Waukegan Savings Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
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 21, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of
A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
1.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
Identity, Credential, and Access Management (ICAM) Division, Office of Security, Office of Mission Assurance (OMA), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a previously approved information collection requirement, with changes, expanding the coverage of the information collection of the Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850.
GSA requires OMB approval for this collection to make determinations on granting unescorted physical access to GSA-controlled facilities and/or logical access to GSA-controlled information systems. The approval is critical for GSA to continue following contractor onboarding processes required for working on GSA contracts. An updated System of Record Notice (SORN) was published in the
Submit comments on or before: February 2, 2016.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0283, Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850, by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-0283, Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0283, Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850” on your attached document.
•
Mr. Phil Ahn, Deputy Director, OMA Identity Credential and Access Management Division, GSA, telephone 202-501-2447 or via email at
The U.S. Government conducts criminal checks to establish that applicants or incumbents working for the Government under contract may have unescorted access to federally controlled facilities. GSA uses the Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850, and digitally captured fingerprints to conduct a FBI National Criminal Information Check (NCIC) for each contractor's physical access determination to GSA-controlled facilities and/or logical access to GSA-controlled information systems. Manual fingerprint card SF-87 is used for exception cases such as contractor's significant geographical distance from fingerprint enrollment sites.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance M-05-24 for Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12, authorizes Federal departments and agencies to ensure that contractors have limited/controlled access to facilities and information systems. GSA Directive CIO P 2181.1 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12, Personal Identity Verification and Credentialing (available at
Contractors' Social Security Number is needed to keep records accurate, because other people may have the same name and birth date. Executive Order 9397, Numbering System for Federal Accounts Relating to Individual Persons, also allows Federal agencies to use this number to help identify individuals in agency records.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 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
Prospective Birth Cohort Study Involving Environmental Uranium Exposure in the Navajo Nation (OMB Control No. 0923-0046, Expiration, 2/29/2016)—Extension—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
The Navajo Nation is the largest Alaska Native/American Indian Reservation in the United States. From 1948 to 1986, many uranium mining and milling operations took place in the Navajo Nation, leaving a large amount of uranium contamination on the reservation. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform requested that federal agencies develop a plan to address health and environmental impacts of uranium contamination in the Navajo Nation.
As a result in 2013, ATSDR and its research partners (University of New Mexico Community Environmental Health Program [UNM-CEHP], Navajo Area Indian Health Service [NAIHS], Navajo Nation Department of Health [NNDOH], Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency [NNEPA], and Navajo culture and language specialists) initiated a research study titled “Prospective Birth Cohort Study Involving Environmental Uranium Exposure in the Navajo Nation” (OMB Control No. 0923-0046; expiration date 02/29/2016). The goal of the research is to better understand and prevent unfavorable child and maternal health outcomes potentially related to prenatal exposures to uranium. As
ATSDR has received supplemental funding to continue the study, a three year extension for PRA clearance is requested to allow further recruitment of mother-infant pairs.
Participants include Native American mothers from age 14 to 45 with verification of pregnancy who have lived in the study area for at least 5 years. Also, participants must consent to receive prenatal care and deliver at one of the healthcare facilities that are taking part in the study.
Since 2013, over 525 mother-infant pairs and over 160 fathers have been enrolled. Biological sample analysis, surveys, and developmental screenings are performed for each participant. An estimated 675 biomonitoring samples have been analyzed for 36 metals/metalloids including uranium, arsenic, lead and mercury. Home environmental assessments (HEAs), conducted by field research staff, consist of gamma radiation surveys, indoor air radon tests, and dust sample analysis of the participants' primary residence during pregnancy, and over 400 HEAs have been completed to date. Mothers must be present at home when field research staff conduct the HEA. Study participants receive report back letters on their biomonitoring and HEA results to inform them of uranium and other heavy metals in their bodies and in and around their home environment.
The survey instruments for pregnant mothers include the following: Eligibility Form, Mother Enrollment Survey, Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ), Mullen Scales for Early Learning (MSEL), Postpartum Survey (2 months), Postpartum Survey (6,9,12 months), Food Frequency Questionnaire/WIC Intake Form, and Home Environmental Assessments. An enrollment survey for fathers who agree to participate is also administered. Follow-up assessments including the Ages & Stages Questionnaire and biomonitoring at 2, 6, 9 and 12 months are currently being conducted for the 387 infants delivered to date.
Community Health and Environmental Research Specialists (CHERS) administer the surveys using a CDC-approved electronic data entry system. Survey instruments are used to collect demographic information and to assess potential environmental health risks and mother-child interactions. The final format of the survey instruments is based on review and input from the Navajo Nation community liaison group and associated Navajo staff to address issues such as cultural sensitivity, comprehension, and language translation.
There is no cost to the respondents other than their time to participate in the study. The total estimated annual burden hours equals 4,455.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice with request for comment.
This proposed notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from the Institute for Medical Quality (IMQ) for recognition as a national accrediting organization (NAO) for Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs) that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on January 4, 2016.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-3329-PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Cindy Melanson, (410) 786-0310. Patricia Chmielewski, (410) 786-6899. Marie Vasbinder, (410) 786-8665.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from an Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) provided certain requirements are met. Section 1832(a)(2)(F)(i) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as an ASC. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 416 specify the
Generally, to enter into an agreement, an ASC must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 416 of our Medicare regulations. Thereafter, the ASC is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements.
Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved national accrediting organization (NAO) that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we may deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an NAO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an NAO is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program may be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A NAO applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the NAO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of NAOs are set forth at § 488.5.
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a NAO's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying NAO's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of the Institute for Medical Quality (IMQ's) request for initial CMS-approval of its ASC accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether IMQ's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions for coverage (CfCs) for ASCs.
IMQ submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for initial CMS-approval of its ASC accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on October 8, 2015. Under Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5, our review and evaluation of IMQ will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:
• The equivalency of IMQ's standards for ASCs as compared with Medicare's CfCsf or ASCs.
• IMQ's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ The comparability of IMQ's processes to those of State agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
++ IMQ's processes and procedures for monitoring an ASC found out of compliance with IMQ's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when IMQ identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the State survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c)(1).
++ IMQ's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ IMQ's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ The adequacy of IMQ's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
++ IMQ's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.
++ IMQ's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.
++ IMQ's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as CMS may require (including corrective action plans).
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a final notice in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that the drug products listed in this document were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means
Stacy Kane, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8363,
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 approved 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 generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, a drug is 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).
Under § 314.161(a) (21 CFR 314.161(a)), the Agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness: (1) Before an ANDA that refers to that listed drug may be approved, (2) whenever a listed drug is voluntarily withdrawn from sale and ANDAs that refer to the listed drug have been approved, and (3) when a person petitions for such a determination under 21 CFR 10.25(a) and 10.30. Section 314.161(d) provides that if FDA determines that a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for safety or effectiveness reasons, the Agency will initiate proceedings that could result in the withdrawal of approval of the ANDAs that refer to the listed drug.
FDA has become aware that the drug products listed in the table in this document are no longer being marketed.
FDA has reviewed its records and, under § 314.161, has determined that the drug products listed in this document were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list the drug products listed in this document in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” identifies, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.
Approved ANDAs that refer to the NDAs and ANDAs listed in this document are unaffected by the discontinued marketing of the products subject to those NDAs and ANDAs. Additional ANDAs that refer to these products may also be approved by the Agency if they comply with relevant legal and regulatory requirements. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
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
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 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.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) requests OMB approval to collect community outcomes data for the cross-site evaluation of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) program, Cohorts IV and V. CSAP has previously funded two cross-site evaluations of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG), one focused on Cohorts I and II and the other on Cohorts III, IV, and V. Collectively, these evaluations provide an important opportunity to inform the prevention field on current practices and their association with community- and state-level outcomes.
Data are collected at the grantee, community, and participant levels. The collection of community outcomes data is the focus of the current request. The primary cross-site evaluation objective is to determine the impact of SPF SIG on building prevention capacity and infrastructure, and preventing the onset and reducing the progression of substance abuse, as measured by the SAMHSA National Outcome Measures (NOMs).
The SPF SIG grant program is a major investment by the federal government to improve substance abuse prevention systems and enhance the quality of prevention programs, primarily through the implementation of the SPF process. The goal of this initiative is to provide states, jurisdictions, tribal entities, and the communities within them with the tools necessary to develop an effective prevention system with attention to the processes, directions, goals, expectations, and accountabilities necessary for functionality. SAMHSA/
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 2-1057, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning The Declaration Process: Requests for Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA), Requests for Supplemental Federal Disaster Assistance, Appeals, and Requests for Cost Share Adjustments collection. This collection allows States and Tribes to request a major disaster or emergency declaration.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 2, 2016.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Dean Webster, Declarations Unit, Federal Emergency Management Agency at (202) 646-2833 or
Under Sections 401 and 501 of the Richard T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) (42 U.S.C 5170 and 5190), if a State or Tribe is impacted by an event of the severity and magnitude that is beyond its response capabilities, the State Governor or Chief Executive may seek a declaration by the President that a major disaster or emergency exists. Any major disaster or emergency request must be submitted through FEMA, which evaluates the request and makes a recommendation to the President about what response action to take. If the major disaster or emergency declaration request is granted, the State or Tribe may be eligible to receive assistance under 42 U.S.C. 5170a-5170c; 5172-5186; 5189c-5189d; and 5192. A State or Tribe may appeal denials of a major disaster or emergency declaration request for determinations under section 44 CFR 206.46 and seek an adjustment to the cost share percentage under section 44 CFR 206.47. FEMA is revising the currently approved information collection to account for a new checkbox on FEMA Form 010-0-13 so that States or Tribes can indicate whether they will be seeking assistance from the Small Business Administration.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP).
Comments must be submitted on or before February 2, 2016.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Paul Belkin, Branch Chief, FEMA, Grant Programs Directorate, 202-786-9771. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
FEMA's Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) supports state and local efforts to prevent terrorism and other catastrophic events and to prepare the Nation for the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk to the security of the United States. The HSGP provides funding to implement investments that build, sustain, and deliver the 31 core capabilities essential to achieving the National Preparedness Goal (the Goal) of a secure and resilient Nation. The building, sustainment, and delivery of these core capabilities are not exclusive to any single level of government, organization, or community, but rather, require the combined effort of the whole community. The HSGP supports core capabilities across the five mission areas of Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery based on allowable costs. HSGP is comprised of three grant programs: State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), and Operation Stonegarden (OPSG). Together, these grant programs fund a range of activities, including planning, organization, equipment purchase, training, exercises, and management and administration across all core capabilities and mission areas. The authorizing authority of the HSGP is Section 2002 of the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
The United States, as a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), may submit proposed resolutions, decisions, and agenda items for consideration at meetings of the Conference of the Parties to CITES. The United States may also propose amendments to the CITES Appendices for consideration at meetings of the Conference of the Parties. The seventeenth regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP17) is scheduled to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa, September 24 to October 5, 2016. With this notice, we describe proposed resolutions, decisions, and agenda items that the United States is considering submitting for consideration at CoP17; invite your comments and information on these proposals; and provide information on how non-governmental organizations based in the United States can attend CoP17 as observers.
We will consider all information and comments you submit concerning proposed resolutions, decisions, and agenda items that the United States is considering submitting for consideration at CoP17, if we receive them on or before February 2, 2016.
You may submit comments pertaining to proposed resolutions, decisions, and agenda items for discussion at CoP17 by one of the following methods:
•
•
We will not consider comments sent by email or fax, or to an address not listed in the
Requests for approval to attend CoP17 as an observer should be sent to the Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: IA, Falls Church, VA
For the latest news and information regarding U.S. preparations for CoP17, please visit our Web site at
For information pertaining to resolutions, decisions, and agenda items, contact: Craig Hoover, Chief, Division of Management Authority, at 703-358-2162 (phone); 703-358-2298 (fax);
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, hereinafter referred to as CITES or the Convention, is an international treaty designed to regulate international trade in certain animal and plant species that are now, or potentially may become, threatened with extinction. These species are listed in Appendices to CITES, which are available on the CITES Secretariat's Web site at
This is our fourth in a series of
In our
We considered all of the recommendations of the above individuals and organizations, as well as the factors described in the U.S. approach for CoP17 discussed in our June 27, 2014,
Please note that, under A, B, and C below, we have listed those resolutions, decisions, and agenda items that the United States is likely to submit, currently undecided about submitting, or currently planning not to submit. We have posted a supplementary document on our Web site at
We welcome your comments and information regarding the resolutions, decisions, and agenda items that the United States is likely to submit,
Wildlife trafficking: Proposal for a document highlighting U.S. progress and leadership on efforts to combat wildlife trafficking.
1. Trade in live elephants: Proposal for a decision at CoP17 to review trade in live elephants to ensure that such trade is legal and conducted in compliance with CITES.
2. Trade in elephant ivory: Domestic ivory markets: Recommendation for the United States to work with key elephant range States and like-minded CITES Party countries to advocate, support, and propose a resolution to ban domestic elephant ivory trade, and support other countries' independent efforts to ban domestic elephant ivory trade; recommendation for submission of a working document encouraging the closure of legal domestic elephant ivory markets; recommendation for an amendment to Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP16) or a new resolution recommending that Parties close their domestic elephant ivory markets; and three recommendations that the United States advocate for a complete ban on global elephant ivory trade.
3. Trade in live rhinoceroses: Recommendation that live rhinoceros not be shipped outside of range countries.
4. Trade in rhinoceros horn: Synthetic products: Recommendation to submit a discussion document outlining the potential problems raised by the introduction of synthetic wildlife products, such as synthetic rhino horn, and examining ways that CITES might address these problems.
5. Trade in pangolins: Proposal for a resolution urging Parties to adopt and implement legislation and enforcement controls, including increased cooperation with other Parties, to reduce illegal trade in pangolins and to encourage the Secretariat and other appropriate bodies to assist those Parties lacking legislation.
6. Trade in sport-hunted trophies: Proposal for: A draft decision directing Parties that undertake voluntary wildlife trade policy reviews examine the probable impacts of lawful sport hunting on the survivability of the hunted species in the wild and provide the Secretariat with the results so that these may be shared with the Parties; a draft decision directing the Animals Committee to form a working group to examine the probable impacts of lawful sport hunting on the survivability of the hunted species in the wild and submit its findings to the Secretariat; and a draft decision directing the Secretariat to compile information received on this issue on its Web site, assist interested Parties in examining the probable impacts of lawful sport hunting on the survivability of the hunted species in the wild, organize a conference to examine the findings of the Animals Committee on the probable impacts of lawful sport hunting on the survivability of the hunted species in the wild, and report at SC69 and CoP18.
7. Marine species: Interpretation of CITES Article XIV, paragraphs 4 and 5: Proposal for a draft resolution to clarify the ambiguities that exist in Article XIV, paragraphs 4 and 5, with respect to implementation of the treaty for marine species.
8. Marine species: CITES National Legislation Project: Recommendation for a request to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to engage with the CITES National Legislation Project as it pertains to marine species.
9. Marine species: Sharks and rays: Proposal for submission of an agenda item to ensure that the outcomes of the working groups on sharks and rays and the deliberations of the Animals Committee and Standing Committee on sharks and rays are discussed and to ensure a discussion on capacity-building needs in the issuance of non-detriment findings for CITES-listed sharks and rays.
10. Marine species: Fish maw trade: Proposal for a decision at CoP17 to further explore the fish maw (swim bladder) trade to identify critical intervention points to ensure that this trade, which threatens two endangered species, can be stopped.
11. Wildlife trafficking: Proposal to submit an agenda item on the issue of wildlife trafficking and the transport industry to facilitate reporting to the CoP on U.S. and other initiatives.
12. Traveling with musical instruments: Recommendation that the United States: Support establishing more efficient and uniform procedures for issuing documents for international transport of musical instruments and inspecting and clearing such documents; and work with officials in other countries to ensure that concepts such as the musical instrument certificate and personal effects exemption for musical instruments containing CITES-listed species are adopted by all CITES Parties.
13. National CITES legislation: Proposal for an amendment to Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP15), on
14. CoP Rules of Procedure: Secret ballots: Proposal to amend Rule 25 (Methods of Voting) of the Rules of Procedure of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) to eliminate voting by secret ballots except with respect to the election of officers.
15. CoP Rules of Procedure: Credentials and voting procedures for regional economic integration organizations: Proposal to amend the Rules of Procedure of the CoP so that they address two issues with respect to the participation of regional economic integration organizations at CoPs: Credentials and voting.
16. Annual reporting on seized specimens: Recommendation that the United States support mandatory annual reporting on illegal CITES trade, with the penalty for failure to report such trade similar to the penalty for failure to submit annual report.
17. Validated reference material: The United States is considering preparing discussion documents on the importance of providing validated reference material of newly listed species, especially timber species, so that appropriate labs and inspections authorities can develop forensic identification techniques.
18. Trade in timber species utilized for hongmu: Recommendation that the United States prepare a discussion document on the legal and illegal trade in timber for the production of traditional Chinese furniture and the potential to address this issue in CITES.
19. Nationally established Appendix-II export quotas: Recommendation that the United States consider submitting a document to CoP17 to examine the current implementation, enforcement, and benefits of the implementation of Resolution Conf. 14.7 (Rev. CoP15), management of nationally established export quotas.
20. CITES specimens accompanied by court-ordered CITES documents: Proposing a revision to CITES Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP16) recommending that: Exporting Parties not export specimens of CITES-listed species without evidence of legal origin of specimens of the species and without evidence of a non-detriment finding; and importing Parties reject shipments of specimens of CITES species accompanied by export permits issued under court order without the required CITES findings.
21. Administrative hosting arrangements: The United States is currently chairing a working group of the Standing Committee that is reviewing the administrative hosting arrangements between the United Nations Environment Programme and the CITES Secretariat and is considering submitting a document to CoP17 on this subject.
22. Youth participation: The United States is considering submitting a draft resolution exploring the opportunities and emphasizing the importance of youth participation in CITES fora.
1. Trade in elephant specimens: Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP16): Proposal for: A comprehensive review of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP16), on
2. Trade in elephant ivory: Decision-making mechanism: Recommendation that: The United States call for greater transparency and wider consultation on development of a decision-making mechanism (DMM) for authorizing ivory trade and request that the background study, the terms of reference for the study, and related documents be made available on the CITES Web site for public comment before being finalized at SC66; the United States, as a member of the DMM Working Group, call for a suspension of the discussion on the DMM and oppose any proposals for international trade in elephant ivory or downlisting of elephant populations; and the United States advocate that Decision 16.55, concerning a decision-making mechanism for a process of trade in elephant ivory, not be renewed at CoP17.
3. Trade in elephant ivory: National Ivory Action Plans: Recommendation that the United States call for the publication on the CITES Web site of the National Ivory Action Plans of the primary concern countries, and the implementation reports by the primary concern countries, secondary concern countries, and the importance to watch countries, along with the feedback by the Secretariat on the content and implementation of the Plans; recommendation that the United States call for revision of the National Ivory Action Plans where appropriate to include meaningful milestones with timeframes for implementation, and evidence to measure the impact through specific indicators; recommendation that the United States call for trade suspensions for Tanzania until they can demonstrate progress in effectively addressing illegal trade in ivory; recommendation that the United States call for adoption of a moratorium on domestic ivory trade in China, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Japan, where domestic ivory markets are perpetuating illegal trade in ivory or licensed trade in ivory has facilitated illegal trade and has been used as a laundering mechanism for the trade in illegal ivory; recommendation that the United States call for destruction of ivory stockpiles following independent inventory and audit and DNA analysis for investigations; recommendation that the United States urge China, Thailand, and Viet Nam to detect, investigate, and apprehend the criminal networks using Laos as a hub for trafficking ivory and other wildlife; and recommendation that the United States call for Japan to be moved higher up on the National Ivory Action Plans list to “primary concern” and for Japan to adopt a National Ivory Action Plan, including a commitment to implement a domestic ivory trade ban.
4. Trade in elephant ivory: Stockpiles: Proposal for the United States to submit a document outlining the rationale for destruction of elephant ivory stockpiles, summarizing progress on the issue since CoP16, and encouraging all Parties to destroy their stockpiles.
5. Trade in rhinoceros horn: Recommendation urging the United States to oppose any proposals to legalize trade in rhinoceros horn, both domestically and internationally; and a recommendation to ensure that Parties are held accountable to the reporting requirements adopted at CoP17 with regard to actions to combat the illegal killing of and trade in rhinoceros horn.
6. Trade in cheetahs: Proposal for a document ensuring that the issue of illegal trade in cheetahs is on the agenda for CoP17.
7. Trade in African lions: Lion farming and trade in lion trophies: Recommendation that the United States submit a document proposing to end the practice of lion farming in South Africa and a document on the issue of lion farming for trade in their body parts; and a document proposing an end to the export and import of lion trophies.
8. Trade in African lions: Protections: Recommendation that the United States support any proposals for improving protection of African lions, including their up-listing.
9. Trade in Asian big cats: Recommendation that the United States: Ensure that the issue of Asia big cats is on the agenda for CoP17, primarily to call for a number of actions in advance of the CoP related to the illegal killing and trade in tigers and other Asian big cats; and consider calling for compliance measures to be enacted against Parties that fail to fulfill the called-for measures.
10. Trade in bears: Recommendation that the United States support proposals for improving protection for bears, including adopting measures to tackle the escalating trade in bear specimens.
11. Great apes: Recommendation that the United States ensure that the issue of great apes is on the agenda for CoP17.
12. Saiga antelope: Recommendation the United States ensure the issue of saiga antelope is on the agenda.
13. Trade in sport-hunted trophies: Proposal for the United States to ban the import of trophies of CITES-listed species.
14. Trade in hornbills and sandalwood: Recommendation that the United States urge source, transit, and consumer countries to demonstrate greater investment in proactive intelligence-led initiatives to target criminal networks and implement demand reduction strategies for red sandalwood (
15. Trade in freshwater turtles and tortoises: Recommendation that the United States ensure that the issue of trade in tortoises and freshwater turtles is on the agenda of CoP17.
16. Marine species: Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) codes: Proposal for a draft resolution recommending that the Parties adopt a list of new 6-digit, 8-digit, and 10-digit HTS codes related to shark and cetacean species and commodities; and that the Parties adopt a CITES description code for `blubber” to use on CITES permits and in annual reports.
17. Marine species: Breeding cetaceans: Recommendation that the
18. Trade in rosewood and ebony: Recommendation that the United States support: Madagascar in its efforts to combat illegal harvest of and trade in rosewood (
19. Wildlife trafficking: Proposal that the United States encourage a report from the United Kingdom on the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, and from Botswana on the Kasane Conference on the Illegal Trade.
20. Traveling with musical instruments: Personal effects exemption: Recommendation that the United States support a personal effects exemption for musical instruments containing CITES-listed species and the implementation of an exemption for musical instruments containing CITES-listed species transported by cargo under a carnet.
21. Traveling with musical instruments: Commercial travel and
22. CITES and livelihoods: Recommendation that the United States ensure that the issue of CITES and livelihoods is on the agenda for CoP17.
23. Enforcement matters: Establishment of a CITES Enforcement Working Group: Recommendation that the United States call for a CITES Enforcement Expert Working Group to be convened on a regular basis.
24. Enforcement matters: Adoption of indicators: Recommendation that the United States support the adoption of indicators of effective enforcement and call for Parties to fully implement such indicators.
25. Enforcement matters: tackling illegal trade through social media channels: Recommendation that the United States call for measures to be adopted for Parties to tackle illegal trade in CITES species through social media channels.
26. Enforcement matters: Amendment to Resolution Conf. 11.3 (Rev. CoP16), on
27. CITES trade data reporting: Proposal for a resolution that describes in detail the need to accurately describe in CITES annual reports both the type of specimen being traded and the quantity of specimens, and that recommends that Parties issue permits and report trade using two units of measurement.
28. Purpose of Transaction codes on CITES permits: Proposal that the United States call for the consistent use of CITES Purpose of Transaction codes so that the same code is used on both import and export CITES documents.
29. Legal owner information on CITES permits: Proposal that the United States call for the disclosure of the legal owner of a specimen on the face of a CITES document.
30. Guidelines for making legal acquisition findings: Recommendation that the United States submit a document regarding the establishment of clear guidelines for Parties to use in making their CITES legal acquisition findings.
31. CITES document validation for scientific research: Recommendation that the United States propose to revise, suspend, or revoke the CITES document validation requirement for the movement of CITES-listed species for scientific research.
32. Primarily commercial purposes: Recommendation that the United States call for establishing clear criteria and guidelines to differentiate between “primarily commercial” purposes and “bona fide scientific research” purposes when making permit decisions.
33. Bred in captivity: Recommendation that the United States propose revisions to Resolutions Conf. 5.10 (Rev. CoP15), Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), and Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15) to clarify the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5 of CITES Article VII for specimens bred in captivity.
34. Laundering of wild-caught specimens: Recommendation that the United States submit the issue of laundering of wild-caught animals as captive-bred as a separate agenda item at CoP17.
35. Interval between CoPs: Proposal for an agenda item clarifying that CoPs should be 2 years apart, and that CoP18 should be held no later than October 2018.
36. Unlisted species: Recommendation that the United States propose a process to facilitate the identification of unlisted species that may benefit from listing in the CITES Appendices.
We invite information and comments concerning any of the proposed CoP17 resolutions, decisions, and agenda items discussed above. You must submit your information and comments to us no later than the date specified in
There may be circumstances in which we would withhold from public review a respondent's name and/or address, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will make all comments and materials submitted by organizations or businesses, and by individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Article XI, paragraph 7 of CITES states the following:
Any body or agency technically qualified in protection, conservation or management of wild fauna and flora, in the following categories, which has informed the Secretariat of its desire to be represented at meetings of the Conference by observers, shall be admitted unless at least one-third of the Parties present object:
(a) international agencies or bodies, either governmental or non-governmental, and national governmental agencies and bodies; and
(b) national non-governmental agencies or bodies which have been approved for this purpose by the State in which they are located.
Once admitted, these observers shall have the right to participate but not to vote.
Persons wishing to be observers representing international non-governmental organizations (which must have offices in more than one country) at CoP17 may request approval directly from the CITES Secretariat.
Any organization that submits a request to us for approval as an observer should include evidence of their technical qualifications in protection, conservation, or management of wild fauna or flora, for both the organization and the individual representative(s). The request should include copies of the organization's charter and any bylaws, and a list of representatives it intends to send to CoP17. Organizations seeking approval for the first time should detail their experience in the protection, conservation, or management of wild fauna or flora, as well as their purposes for wishing to participate in CoP17 as an observer. An organization that we have previously approved as an observer at a meeting of the Conference of the Parties within the past 5 years must submit a request, but does not need to provide as much detailed information concerning its qualifications as an organization seeking approval for the first time. These requests should be sent to the Division of Management Authority at the address provided in
Once we approve an organization as an observer, we will inform them of the appropriate page on the CITES Web site where they may obtain instructions for registration with the CITES Secretariat, including a meeting registration form and travel and hotel information. A list of organizations approved for observer status at CoP17 will be available upon request from the Division of Management Authority just prior to the start of CoP17.
We expect the CITES Secretariat to provide us with a provisional agenda for CoP17 within the next several months. Once we receive the provisional agenda, we will publish it in a
The United States will submit any proposed resolutions, decisions, and agenda items, as well as any species proposals, for consideration at CoP17 to the CITES Secretariat 150 days prior to the start of the meeting (
Through an additional notice and Web site posting in advance of CoP17, we will inform you about preliminary negotiating positions on resolutions, decisions, agenda items, and amendments to the Appendices proposed by other Parties for consideration at CoP17. We will also publish an announcement of a public meeting tentatively to be held approximately 2 to 3 months prior to CoP17, to receive public input on our positions regarding issues on the agenda for CoP17. The procedures for developing U.S. documents and negotiating positions for a meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES are outlined at 50 CFR 23.87. As noted at 50 CFR 23.87(c), we may modify or suspend the procedures outlined there if they would interfere with the timely or appropriate development of documents for submission to the meeting of the Conference of the Parties and of U.S. negotiating positions.
The authority for this action is the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, on January 4, 2016.
Protests of the survey must be filed before January 4, 2016 to be considered.
Protests of the survey should be sent to the Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669.
Marvin Montoya, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5124 or (406) 896-5003,
These surveys were executed at the request of the Regional Land Surveyor, Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and were necessary to determine boundaries of Federal lands.
The lands we surveyed are:
The plat, in 1 sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 22 North, Range 43 East, of the Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted September 25, 2015.
The plat, in 3 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south and east boundaries and a portion of the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of certain sections and the
We will place a copy of the plats, in four sheets, and related field notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the plats, in four sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file the plats, in four sheets, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, on January 4, 2016.
Protests of the survey must be filed before January 4, 2016 to be considered.
Protests of the survey should be sent to the Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669.
Marvin Montoya, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5124 or (406) 896-5003,
This survey was executed at the request of the National Park Service, Midwest Regional Office, Omaha Nebraska, and was necessary to determine boundaries of Federal lands.
The lands we surveyed are:
The plat, in two sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of sections 4, 9, and 20, and the survey of a portion of the centerline of Custer County Road No. 101, in section 20, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, of the Black Hills Meridian, South Dakota, was accepted October 21, 2015.
We will place a copy of the plat, in two sheets, and related field notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on this plat, in two sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file this plat, in two sheets, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) will be submitting the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 2, 2016.
All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Mr. Samuel Berhanu, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, CJIS Division, Module E-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306; facsimile (304) 625-3566.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques of other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street, Room 3E-405, Washington, DC 20530.
On November 30, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Second Amendment to Consent Decree in
On December 7, 2005, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered a Consent Decree in the above-referenced case to resolve claims that WSSC had violated the Clean Water Act and Maryland water pollution control, health and nuisance laws. Four citizens groups- the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Inc., Friends of Sligo Creek, and Natural Resources Defense Council also intervened as plaintiffs in the underlying civil action, and signed the Consent Decree. In a First Amendment to the Consent Decree another citizens group- the Patuxent Riverkeeper- also intervened as a plaintiff.
The overarching purpose of the 2005 Consent Decree is to eliminate the sanitary sewer overflows (“SSOs”) occurring in WSSC's collection system by, among other things, requiring WSSC to inspect the condition of its sewer basins, identify structural and capacity problems contributing to SSOs, and to propose plans to remediate such problems. The 2005 Consent Decree, as entered, requires WSSC to complete collection system repair work by December 7, 2015. Although WSSC has completed the majority of this work, it has been unable to complete a sizable portion of the work due to delays in obtaining necessary permits from governmental agencies, and the need to institute condemnation proceedings to obtain access to private property to perform sewer work.
Thus in the proposed Second Amendment the United States, Maryland and WSSC have agreed that WSSC shall have six additional years to complete most of the “delayed work.” The Second Amendment makes an exception to the overall six year extension for delayed work affecting lands owned and managed by the National Park System (“NPS”) of the United States Department of Interior. For sewer projects affecting NPS lands, the timing of NPS's issuance of a permit to proceed will determine how much additional time WSSC has to complete such work.
Pursuant to Paragraph 60 (the “Modification Section”) of the 2005 Consent Decree, material modifications to the Decree may be made by written agreement of the United States, Maryland and WSSC, and approval of the Court, after notice and motion to all parties. The citizens groups have a right to support or oppose a motion for material modification by filing with the Court and serving on all parties a statement of position.
The publication of this notice also opens a period for public comment on the proposed Second Amendment to Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $2.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, announces the availability of approximately $100,000,000 in grant funds for the TechHire partnership grant program. ETA expects to fund approximately 30-40 grants, with individual grant amounts ranging from $2 million to $5 million. This grant program is designed to equip individuals with the skills they need through innovative approaches that can rapidly train workers for and connect them to well-paying, middle- and high-skilled, and high-growth jobs across a diversity of H-1B industries such as IT, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, financial services, and broadband. At least $50 million will be
The complete FOA and any subsequent FOA amendments in connection with this solicitation are described in further detail on ETA's Web site at
The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is March 11, 2016. Applications must be received no later than 4:00:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Aiyana Pucci, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, at (202) 693-3403. Applicants should email all technical questions to
The Grant Officer for this FOA is Melissa Abdullah.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
Alan T. Waterman Award Committee (#1172).
January 19, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m.
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1235, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Closed.
Sherrie B. Green, Program Manager, Room 933, (703) 292-5053.
To provide advice and recommendations in the selection of the Alan T. Waterman Award recipient.
To review and evaluate nominations as part of the selection process for awards.
The nominations being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the nominations. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request establishment and clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than three years.
A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Submit comments before February 2, 2016.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to
Please submit one copy of your comments by only one method. All submissions received must include the agency name and collection name identified above for this information collection. Commenters are strongly encouraged to transmit their comments electronically via email. Comments, including any personal information provided become a matter of public record. They will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to
The Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program was established in 2011 as part of NSF's efforts to encourage a culture of innovation among recipients of research grants. The program provides support and guidance to selected grantees on how to pursue commercial applications of their research. The I-Corps Teams program uses a lean startup approach to encourage scientists to think like entrepreneurs through intensive workshop training and ongoing support. The program focuses on teams comprised of a principal investigator, entrepreneurial lead, and mentor that work together to explore commercialization for their research-derived products.
NSF is supporting the evaluation of the program that includes a rigorous
The Office of Management and Budget has previously provided clearance for 3 data collection efforts associated with the I-Corps workshops targeting I-Corps grantees. These refer to: (1) A pre-course survey (2) a post-course survey and (3) a longitudinal survey of principal investigators in the program. This request builds on this previously approved information collection for NSF's Engineering IIP Program Monitoring Clearance (OMB Control No. 3145-0238).
This information collection request relates to (1) a proposed survey of principal investigators (PIs) in comparable Non-I-Corps NSF projects and (2) In-depth interviews with 10 I-Corps and 10 comparable non-I-Corps teams.
The survey will begin with an initial screening module to identify PIs who have received support for projects with commercial potential and who have desire to act on that potential but have not received an I-Corps grant. PIs with non-Corps NSF-funded projects awarded between 2009 and 2013 will be surveyed. PIs who reported active interest in commercial potential for their research projects will be asked to complete an additional module adapted from the I-Corps Longitudinal Data Collection already approved by OMB for I-Corps team members. The longitudinal survey collects information on project outputs and outcomes related to commercialization of research-based products. PIs not interested in the commercial potential of their research will stop the survey after completing the screening module.
In addition to the comparison between the I-Corps teams and a comparable group based on survey results, the study also includes in-depth interviews to gain an understanding of the influence of participation in the I-Corps program on PIs and other team members as well as to compare the impact of the I-Corps program on industry collaborations and other networking activities. Half of all in-depth interviews will be conducted over the phone while the other half will take place during site visits to the home institutions of the teams selected for the study.
December 7, 14, 21, 28, 2015, January 4, 11, 2016.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 7, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 21, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 28, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 4, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 11, 2016.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600: Market Vectors Dynamic Put Write ETF. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the shares (“Shares”) of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange:
Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation will serve as the investment adviser (“Adviser”) to the Fund. Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers will also be the administrator for the Fund (the “Administrator”), and The Bank of New York Mellon will be the custodian (“Custodian” or “Transfer Agent”) of the Fund's assets and provide transfer agency and fund accounting services to the Fund. Van Eck Securities Corporation will be the distributor of the Fund's Shares (“Distributor”).
Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio. In addition, Commentary .06 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund's investment objective will be to seek a positive total return and income.
The Fund, under normal circumstances,
The Fund will seek a positive total return with both income and capital appreciation by collecting premiums on options sold and investing cash in excess of the amount necessary to fulfill option margin requirements in cash and cash equivalents, including U.S. Treasury bills. The Fund will seek to generate a positive total return by selling options based on a predetermined strike price calculation and roll schedule. The strike price is the price at which the contract can be exercised. Rolling an option contract, in reference to this Fund, refers to the process of buying existing contracts to close them out and selling new put option contracts. The strike price calculation is designed to adjust the strike prices based on the risk of the equity market by taking into account the underlying asset's price, price volatility and dividend yield and the yield of U.S. Treasury bills. The roll schedule is designed to stagger the put option contracts on a weekly basis to have varying option strike prices and option expiration dates at any given time. The value of put option contracts in the market are primarily determined by the options' distance in or out of the money, time to expiration, and the volatility of the underlying asset.
The aggregate notional value (
If the Fund receives additional inflows (and issues more Shares accordingly in large aggregations known as “Creation Units,” as defined below) in between scheduled put option rolls, the Fund will sell additional listed put options, allocated on a pro rata basis based on the holdings of the Fund. However, if the trading costs exceed the potential premium received, the Fund will keep that portion of the Creation Unit in cash until the next scheduled option roll. Conversely, if the Fund redeems Shares in Creation Unit size in between scheduled put option rolls, the Fund will terminate the appropriate portion of the options it has sold on a pro rata basis.
While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will seek to achieve its investment objective by selling primarily exchange-listed, uncovered out-of-the-money put options, as described above, the Fund may invest its remaining assets in other securities and financial instruments, as described below.
The Fund may hold cash and cash equivalents, including the following: U.S. Treasury Bills, repurchase agreements, money market instruments, or investment companies and exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”)
While the Fund will primarily sell put option contracts on (i) the S&P 500 Index, (ii) futures on the S&P 500 Index and/or (iii) e-mini futures on the S&P 500 Index with an aggregate notional value of approximately 200% of the Fund's net assets, the Fund also may invest in other U.S. exchange-traded stock index options, options on stock index futures contracts, options on the Fund (if available) or exchange-traded pooled investment vehicles,
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will issue and sell Shares only in “Creation Units” on a continuous basis through the Distributor at their NAV next determined after receipt, on any business day, of an order in proper form. The consideration for a purchase of Creation Units is cash. To the extent in-kind creations are effected for the Fund, Creation Units of the Fund will consist of cash and/or the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities (the “Deposit Securities”) and an amount of cash computed as described below (the “Cash Component”). The Cash Component together with the Deposit Securities, as applicable, are referred to as the “Fund Deposit”, which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for Shares. The Cash Component represents the difference between the NAV of a Creation Unit and the market value of Deposit Securities and may include a “Dividend Equivalent Payment”. The Dividend Equivalent Payment will enable the Fund to make a complete distribution of dividends on the next dividend payment date, and is an amount equal, on a per Creation Unit basis, to the dividends on all the securities held by the Fund (“Fund Securities”) with ex-dividend dates within the accumulation period for such distribution (the “Accumulation Period”), net of expenses and liabilities for such period, as if all of the Fund Securities had been held by the Trust for the entire Accumulation Period. The Accumulation Period begins on the ex-dividend date for the Fund and ends on the next ex-dividend date.
The Administrator, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), will make available on each business day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security to be included in the current
The identity and number of shares of the Deposit Securities required for the Fund Deposit for the Fund will change as rebalancing adjustments and corporate action events are reflected from time to time by the Adviser with a view to the investment objective of the Fund. The composition of the Deposit Securities may also change in response to adjustments to the weighting or composition of the securities constituting the Index. In addition, the Trust reserves the right to accept a basket of securities or cash that differs from Deposit Securities or to permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash (
In addition to the list of names and numbers of securities constituting the current Deposit Securities of the Fund Deposit, the Administrator, through the NSCC, also will make available on each business day, the Dividend Equivalent Payment, if any, and the estimated Cash Component effective through and including the previous business day, per outstanding Share of the Fund.
To be eligible to place orders with the Distributor to create Creation Units of the Fund, an entity or person either must be (1) a “Participating Party,”
All orders to create Creation Units must be placed in multiples of 50,000 Shares (
Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Distributor, only on a business day and only through a Participating Party or DTC Participant who has executed a Participant Agreement. The Trust will not redeem Shares in amounts less than Creation Units.
Redemptions generally will be effected for cash. To the extent redemptions are effected in-kind, the Administrator, through NSCC, will make available immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time) on each day that the Exchange is open for business, the Fund Securities that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form on that day.
To the extent redemptions are effected in-kind, the redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit generally will consist of Fund Securities as announced by the Administrator on the business day of the request for redemption, plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities, less the redemption transaction fee and certain variable fees. Should the Fund Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, a compensating cash payment to the Trust equal to the differential plus the applicable redemption transaction fee will be required to be arranged for by or on behalf of the redeeming shareholder. The Fund reserves the right to honor a redemption request by delivering a basket of securities or cash that differs from the Fund Securities.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), consistent with Commission guidance. The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid assets. Illiquid assets include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
For temporary defensive purposes, the Fund may hold cash and cash equivalents, including U.S. Treasury bills and/or invest without limit in money market instruments, repurchase agreements, or other funds which invest exclusively in money market instruments. The Fund may take temporary defensive positions in anticipation of or in an attempt to respond to adverse market, economic, political or other conditions.
The Fund intends to qualify for and to elect to be treated as a separate regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code.
The Fund's investments, including the sale of options and options on futures, will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and may be used to enhance leverage.
The NAV per Share for the Fund will be computed by dividing the value of the net assets of the Fund (
The Fund currently expects that the values of the Fund's put options and cash and cash equivalents will be based on the securities' closing prices on local markets, when available. In the absence of a last reported sales price, or if no sales were reported, and for other assets for which market quotes are not readily available, values may be based on quotes obtained from a quotation reporting system, established market makers or by an outside independent pricing service.
ETFs and pooled investment vehicles will be valued at market value, which will generally be determined using the last reported official closing or last trading price on the exchange or market on which the security is primarily traded at the time of valuation or, if no sale has occurred, at the mean between the last quoted bid and asked price on the primary market or exchange on which they are traded. Investment company securities (other than ETFs) will be valued at NAV.
Money market instruments and repurchase agreements will be valued based on evaluations or price quotations obtained from a third-party pricing service or from a broker-dealer who makes markets in such securities, and such investments that are short-term investments (that is, having a maturity of 60 days or less) will be valued at amortized cost.
Prices obtained by an outside independent pricing service may use information provided by market makers or estimates of market values obtained from yield data related to investments or securities with similar characteristics and may use a computerized grid matrix of securities and its evaluations in determining what it believes is the fair value of the portfolio securities. If a market quotation for a security is not readily available or the Adviser believes it does not otherwise accurately reflect the market value of the security at the time the Fund will calculate its NAV, the security will be fair valued by the Adviser in accordance with the Trust's valuation policies and procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. The Fund expects that it may also use fair value pricing in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to, situations where the value of a security in the Fund's portfolio has been materially affected by events occurring after the close of the market on which the security is principally traded (such as a corporate action or other news that may materially affect the price of a security) or trading in a security has been suspended or halted. Accordingly, the Fund's NAV may reflect certain portfolio securities' fair values rather than their market prices at the time the exchanges on which they principally trade close.
The Fund's Web site (
The Fund will disclose on the Fund's Web site the following information regarding each portfolio holding, as applicable to the type of holding: ticker symbol, CUSIP number or other identifier, if any; a description of the holding (including the type of holding, such as the type of option); the identity of the security, commodity, index or other asset or instrument underlying the holding, if any; for options, the option strike price; quantity held (as measured by, for example, par value, notional value or number of shares, contracts or units); maturity date, if any; coupon rate, if any; effective date, if any; market value of the holding; and the percentage weighting of the holding in the Fund's portfolio. The Web site information will be publicly available at no charge.
In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities, if applicable, required to be delivered in exchange for the Fund's Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the Exchange via the NSCC. The basket represents one Creation Unit of the Fund. The NAV of Shares of the Fund will normally be determined as of the close of the regular trading session on the Exchange (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. Eastern time) on each business day. Authorized Participants may refer to the basket composition file for information regarding securities and financial instruments that may comprise the Fund's basket on a given day.
In order to provide investors with a basis to gauge whether the market price of the Shares on the Exchange is approximately consistent with the current value of the assets of the Fund on a per Share basis, an updated Indicative Per Share Portfolio Value will be disseminated every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session by major market data vendors.
Investors can also obtain the Trust's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's shareholder reports, and its Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR, filed twice a year. The Trust's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and the Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
Quotation and last sale information for the Shares, ETFs and pooled investment vehicles will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line. Quotation and last sale information for exchange-listed options cleared via the Options Clearing Corporation will be available via the Options Price Reporting Authority. Intra-day and closing price information regarding exchange-traded options (including options on futures) will be available from the exchange on which such instruments are traded. Intra-day and closing price information regarding money market instruments, repurchase agreements, cash and cash equivalents, including U.S. Treasuries, will be available from major market data vendors. Price information for non-exchange-traded investment company securities will be available from major market data vendors and from the Web site of the applicable investment company.
In addition, the Indicative Per Share Portfolio Value, which is the Portfolio Indicative Value as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(c)(3), will be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session by one or more major market data vendors. The dissemination of the Indicative Per Share Portfolio Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of the Fund on a daily basis and will provide a close estimate of that value throughout the trading day.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund.
If the Indicative Per Share Portfolio Value is not being disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the disruption occurs; if the interruption persists past the day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(a)(5), if the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV for the Fund is not being disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the NAV is available to all market participants.
The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. Consistent with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(B)(ii), the Adviser, as the Reporting Authority, will implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the actual components of the Fund's portfolio. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Opening, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, Commentary .03, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
The Exchange represents that the trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by regulatory staff of the Exchange or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or the regulatory staff of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, options contracts and options on futures contracts with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, options contracts, and options on futures contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the regulatory staff of the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, options contracts, and options on futures contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading of Shares in the Fund, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IIV or Index value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the IIV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be disseminated; (5) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m., Eastern time each trading day.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, or the regulatory staff of the Exchange, which are designed to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange. FINRA and the regulatory staff of the Exchange, as applicable, may each obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG, and in the case of the Exchange, from other market or entities with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer but is affiliated with a broker-dealer whose primary function is to serve as distributor and placement agent for Van Eck products. Van Eck has implemented controls with respect to such broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective. While the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily every day the NYSE is open, and that the NAV will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of publicly available information will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, the IIV will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in the Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotations and last sale information will be available via the CTA high-speed line. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via the CTA high-speed line, and from the Exchange. Quotation and last sale information for exchange-listed options cleared via the Options Clearing Corporation will be available via the Options Price Reporting Authority. Intra-day and closing price information regarding exchange-traded options (including options on futures) will be available from the exchange on which such instruments are traded. Intra-day and closing price information regarding money market instruments; repurchase agreements; cash and cash equivalents also will be available from major market data vendors.
The Web site for the Fund will include the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading the Shares inadvisable. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the IIV, the Fund's portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the regulatory staff of the Exchange or FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange. The regulatory staff of the Exchange, or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, options contracts and options on futures contracts with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the regulatory staff of the Exchange, or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, options contracts, and options on futures contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the
In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the IIV, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
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. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively managed ETF that holds options or options on futures and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
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
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an Email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Options Pricing at Chapter XV Section 2, entitled “BX Options Market—Fees and Rebates,” which governs pricing for BX members using the BX Options Market (“BX Options”). The Exchange proposes to adopt fees and rebates related to order exposure.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Chapter XV, Section 2 to add new subsection (4) to adopt fees and rebates related to order exposure alerts on the BX Options market.
The Exchange has recently filed a proposal to implement an order exposure alert in BX Chapter VI, Section 11,
Chapter VI, Section 11(1)(A) [sic] provides that a SEEK order remaining on the book after the opening process or received during open trading that is marketable against the ABBO when the ABBO is better than the displayed Exchange BBO will initiate a Route Timer not to exceed one second, and expose the SEEK order at the NBBO to allow market participants an opportunity to interact with the SEEK order. During the Route Timer, the SEEK order will be included in the displayed Exchange BBO at the better of a price one MPV away from the ABBO or the established Exchange BBO. If, during the Route Timer, any new interest arrives opposite the SEEK order that is equal to or better than the ABBO price, the SEEK order will trade against such new interest at the ABBO price. While on the book at the limit price, should a SEEK order subsequently be locked or crossed by another market center, the System will not re-expose the order. An order exposure alert may be sent if the order size is modified.
Chapter VI, Section 11(1)(B) [sic] provides that a SRCH order remaining on the book after the opening process or received during open trading that is marketable against the ABBO when the ABBO is better than the displayed Exchange BBO will initiate a Route Timer not to exceed one second, and expose the SRCH order at the NBBO to allow market participants an opportunity to interact with the remainder of the SRCH order. During the Route Timer, the SRCH order will be included in the displayed Exchange BBO at the better of a price one MPV away from the ABBO or the established Exchange BBO. If, during the Route Timer, any new interest arrives opposite the SRCH order that is equal to or better than the ABBO price, the SRCH order will trade against such new interest at the ABBO price. Once on the book, should a SRCH order subsequently be locked or crossed by another market center, it will be re-exposed, provided it is not on the book at its limit price, and re-route. An order exposure alert may be sent if the order size is modified.
The Exchange proposes two new sets of fees and rebates in respect of the order exposure alert system, which would apply to Customers,
Change 1. For Penny Pilot Options,
Change 2. For non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange is proposing to establish rebates and fees for orders that trigger or respond to order exposure alerts.
Each specific change is described in detail below.
For Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange is proposing to establish rebates for orders triggering an order exposure alert
For Penny Pilot Options, the rebates will range from $0.00 to $0.34 (per executed contract). Specifically, proposed Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (4) will state that the Customer rebate for orders triggering order exposure alert will be $0.34. There will be no rebates for BX Options Market Makers and non-Customers. For Penny Pilot Options, the fees will range from $0.39 to $0.45. Specifically, proposed subsection (4) will state regarding Penny Pilot Options that the Customer fee for orders responding to order exposure alert will be $0.39; and the BX Options Market Maker fee will similarly be $0.39. The non-Customer fee for orders responding to order exposure alert will be $0.45.
For non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange is proposing to establish rebates for orders triggering an order exposure alert
For non-Penny Pilot Options, the rebates will range from $0.00 to $0.70 (per executed contract). Specifically, proposed Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (4) will state that the Customer rebate for orders triggering order exposure alert will be $0.70. There will be no rebates for BX Options Market Makers and non-Customers. For non-Penny Pilot Options, the fees will range from $0.85 to $0.89. Specifically, proposed subsection (4) will state that for non-Penny Pilot Options the Customer fee for orders responding to order exposure alert will be $0.85; and the BX Options Market Maker fee will similarly be $0.85. The non-Customer fee for orders responding to order exposure alert will be $0.89.
As proposed, Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (4) will read as follows.
(4) Fees for execution of contracts on the BX Options Market that generate an order exposure alert per BX Chapter VI, Section 11(a):
The Exchange is adopting these fees and rebates at this time because it believes that they will provide incentives to use the Exchange's order exposure functionality. The Exchange believes that its proposal should provide increased opportunities for participation in executions on the Exchange, facilitating the ability of the Exchange to bring together participants and encourage more robust competition for orders.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, for example, the Commission indicated that market forces should generally determine the price of non-core market data because national market system regulation “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . . .”
The Exchange's proposal establishes fees and rebates regarding order exposure alert. Order exposure has the potential to result in more efficient executions for customers as responses to exposed orders could result in faster executions. Order exposure assures that such exposed orders will only receive executions at a price at least as good as the price disseminated by the best away market at the time the order was received. The Exchange believes that its proposal should provide increased opportunities for participation in executions on the Exchange, facilitating the ability of the Exchange to bring together participants and encourage more robust competition for orders.
For Penny Pilot Options, establishing a Customer rebate for orders triggering order exposure alert at $0.34 per executed contract, with no rebates for BX Options Market Makers and non-Customers, is reasonable because it encourages the desired Customer behavior by attracting Customer interest to the Exchange. Establishing a Customer, BX Options Market Maker, and non-Customer fee for orders responding to order exposure alert at $0.39, $0.39, and $0.45 per executed contract, respectively, is reasonable because the associated revenue will allow the Exchange to maintain and enhance its services.
For Penny Pilot Options, establishing the rebate for Customers and fee for Customers, BX Market Makers, and non-Customers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because the Exchange's proposal to pay rebates for orders that trigger order exposure alert or assess fees for orders that respond to order exposure alert will apply the same rebate and fee to all similarly situated participants.
For Penny Pilot Options, Customers are the only ones that would get a rebate per executed contract for triggering order exposure alert ($0.34), and Customers would pay the lowest fee for responding to order exposure alert ($0.39), for the lowest effective order exposure assessment. The Exchange believes that this is reasonable. Customer activity enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants and benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. BX Options Market Makers would get the second lowest effective fee for responding to order exposure alert ($0.39)—and no rebate. The Exchange believes that the differentiation is reasonable and notes that unlike others (
For non-Penny Pilot Options, establishing a Customer rebate for orders triggering order exposure alert at $0.70 per executed contract, with no rebates for BX Options Market Makers and non-Customers, is reasonable because it encourages the desired Customer behavior by attracting Customer interest to the Exchange. Establishing a Customer, BX Options Market Maker, and non-Customer fee for orders responding to order exposure alert at $0.85, $0.85, and $0.89 per executed contract, respectively, is reasonable because the associated revenue will allow the Exchange to maintain and enhance its services.
For non-Penny Pilot Options, establishing the rebate for Customers and fee for Customers, BX Market Makers, and non-Customers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because the Exchange's proposal to pay rebates for orders that trigger order exposure alert or assess fees for orders that respond to order exposure alert will apply the same rebate and fee to all similarly situated participants.
For non-Penny Pilot Options, similarly to Penny Pilot Options, Customers are the only ones that would get a rebate per executed contract for triggering order exposure alert ($0.70), and Customers would pay the lowest fee for responding to order exposure alert ($0.85), for the lowest effective order exposure assessment. The Exchange believes that this is reasonable. Customer activity enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants and benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. BX Options Market Makers would get the second lowest effective fee for responding to order exposure alert ($0.85)—and no rebate. The Exchange believes that the differentiation is reasonable and notes that unlike others (
The Exchange is adopting the proposed fees and rebates at this time because it believes that the associated revenue will allow it to continue and enhance order exposure services.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal to establish rebates for orders triggering an order exposure alert and fees for orders responding to order
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels or rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or inadequate. Additionally, new competitors have entered the market and still others are reportedly entering the market shortly. These market forces ensure that the Exchange's fees and rebates remain competitive with the fee structures at other trading platforms. In that sense, the Exchange's proposal is actually pro-competitive because the Exchange is simply establishing rebates and fees in order to remain competitive in the current environment.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange notes that price differentiation among different market participants operating on the Exchange (
In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed and credits available to member firms in respect of order exposure alerts do not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution and routing services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. If the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. Additionally, the changes proposed herein are pro-competitive to the extent that they continue to allow the Exchange to promote and maintain an order exposure alert that has the potential to result in more efficient executions as responses to exposed orders could result in faster executions.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the Advisory Committee on Private International Law. Through the Committee, the Department of State obtains the views of the public with respect to significant private international law issues that arise in international organizations of which the United States is a Member State, in international bodies in whose work the United States has an interest, or in the foreign relations of the United States.
The Committee is comprised of representatives from other government agencies, representatives of national organizations, and experts and professionals active in the field of international law.
Comments should be sent to the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law at
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
Written comments should be submitted by February 2, 2016.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-200X-XXXX] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Walter Culbreath 202-366-1566, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
NHTSA requests information for MYs 2012-2025 to aid NHTSA in developing a realistic forecast of the MY 2016-2025 vehicle market. Information regarding earlier model years may help the agency to better account for cumulative effects such as volume-and time-based reductions in costs, and also may help to reveal product mix and technology application trends during model years for which the agency is currently receiving actual corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) compliance data. Information regarding later model years helps the agency gain a better understanding of how manufacturers' plans through MY 2025 relate to their longer-term expectations regarding Energy Independence and Security Act requirements, market trends, and prospects for more advanced technologies.
NHTSA will also consider information from model years before and after MYs 2016-2025 when reviewing manufacturers' planned schedules for redesigning and freshening their products, in order to examine how manufacturers anticipate tying technology introduction to product design schedules. In addition, the agency is requesting information regarding manufacturers' estimates of the future vehicle population, and fuel economy improvements and incremental costs attributed to this notice.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
Central Maine & Quebec Railway US Inc. (CMQ), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease from the State of Maine Department of Transportation, and to operate approximately 59.42 miles of rail line owned by the State of Maine (the Line). The Line consists of (1) the Brunswick Yard between the east side of Church Road, milepost CPL 15, and Rock Jct., milepost CPL 17; (2) the Rockland Branch between milepost 29.40 at Brunswick Yard in Brunswick and milepost 85.85 in Rockland; and (3) the Atlantic Branch Line between milepost 85.36 and milepost 86.65 in Rockland. The Line runs through Knox, Lincoln, and Sagadahoc Counties, ME.
CMQ will replace Morristown & Erie Railway, Inc. d/b/a Maine Eastern Railroad (MER) as the operator on the Line. Pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.42(b), CMQ states in a filing on November 24, 2015, that it has notified the shippers on the Line of the proposed change in operator.
CMQ certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier. Because its annual revenues exceed $5 million, however, CMQ has certified, as required by 49 CFR 1150.42(e), that it posted notice of intent at the workplace of employees in Rockland, ME, and distributed to employees of the MER. CMQ further states that it will offer up to four positions to MER's employees prior to consummation. According to CMQ, the lease does not contain any provision or agreement that may limit future interchange of traffic with a third-party connecting carrier.
The transaction may be consummated on or after December 19, 2015, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed). CMQ states that the proposed schedule for consummation of the transaction is January 1, 2016.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and ten copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35975, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Louis E. Gitomer, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, 600 Baltimore Ave., Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Department of Transportation.
Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2015-11-24); Docket DOT-OST-2014-0114.
The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Aerodynamics Incorporated fit, willing, and able, and awarding it a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, property, and mail.
Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than December 14, 2015.
Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Docket DOT-OST-2014-0114 and addressed to the Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.
Catherine O'Toole, Air Carrier Fitness Division, (X-56, Office W86-469), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Joint notice and request for comment.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (the Agencies) as part of their continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on an information collection renewal, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Agencies are soliciting comment concerning the renewal of their information collection titled “Interagency Appraisal Complaint Form.”
Comments must be received by February 2, 2016.
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
•
•
•
•
•
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 1473(p) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Representatives from the Agencies, the Board, the NCUA, and the CFPB met and established a process to facilitate the referral of complaints received through the ASC Hotline to the appropriate federal financial institution regulatory agency or agencies. The Agencies, the Board, and the NCUA developed the Interagency Appraisal Complaint Form to collect information necessary to take further action on the complaint. The CFPB incorporated the process into one of their existing systems.
The Interagency Appraisal Complaint Form was developed for use by those who wish to file a formal, written complaint that an entity subject to the jurisdiction of one or more Agencies, the Board, or the NCUA has failed to comply with the appraisal independence standards or USPAP. The Interagency Appraisal Complaint Form is designed to collect information necessary for one or both of the Agencies, the Board, or the NCUA to take further action on a complaint from an appraiser, other individual, financial institution, or other entities. The Agencies, the Board, and the NCUA use the information to take further action on the complaint to the extent the complaint relates to an issue within their jurisdiction. The Board and the NCUA are renewing their forms separately.
The OCC and FDIC estimate that the burden of this collection of information is as follows:
OMB Control Number: 1557-0314.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,500.
Estimated Burden per Response: 0.5 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 750 hours.
OMB Control Number: 3064-0190.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 200.
Estimated Burden per Response: 0.5 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 100 hours.
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agencies, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the Agencies' estimates of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is removing the names of sixteen individuals and thirty entities whose property and interests in property have been blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13348 (EO 13348) of July 22, 2004, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Importation of Certain Goods from Liberia.” Additionally, OFAC is amending the designation of two individuals who will no longer be blocked under EO 13348, but will remain on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) pursuant to Executive Order 13413, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”
OFAC's actions described in this notice are effective as of November 12, 2015.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410 (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On November 12, 2015, the President signed Executive Order 13710, terminating the national emergency in Executive Order 13348 of July 22, 2004 with respect to the actions and policies of former Liberian President Charles Taylor and other persons. As such, the following individuals and entities are no longer subject to the blocking provisions of Section 1(a) of E.O. 13348 and are being removed from the Specially Designated Nationals List and Blocked Persons (SDN List) as of the effective date of Executive Order 13710:
The following individuals will no longer be listed pursuant to EO 13348, but will remain listed on the SDN List pursuant to Executive Order 13413 of October 27, 2006, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” as amended by Executive Order 13671 of July 8, 2014, “Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” These individuals continue to be subject to blocking and all other applicable provisions related to their continuing designations.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of two individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
OFAC's actions described in this notice are effective on December 1, 2015.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On December 1, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following individuals pursuant to E.O. 13224, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism”:
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice.
This notice provides information to participants in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) home loan guaranty program concerning the state foreclosure timeframes allowable in the calculation of the maximum interest payable on a foreclosure of a VA-guaranteed loan. The table in this notice contains the timeframes the Secretary has determined to be reasonable and customary for all states, following an annual review of amounts allowed by other government-related home loan programs.
The new foreclosure timeframes will be effective for all loan terminations completed on or after January 4, 2016.
Andrew Trevayne, Assistant Director for Loan and Property Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-8795 (not a toll-free number).
In accordance with 38 U.S.C. Chapter 37, the VA home loan guaranty program offers a partial guaranty against loss to lenders who make home loans to Veterans. VA regulations concerning the payment of loan guaranty claims are set forth at 38 CFR 36.4300,
The Secretary annually reviews timeframes in connection with the termination of single-family housing loans including foreclosure, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, and bankruptcy-related services, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. See 38 CFR 36.4322(a). Based on increases announced over the past year by these entities, the Secretary has deemed it necessary to publish in the
The following table represents the Secretary's determination of the reasonable foreclosure timeframes for the preferred method of terminating VA-guaranteed loans and mirrors the timeframes allowed by Fannie Mae. This table will be available throughout the year at:
The Secretary
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Summary presentation of interim and final rules.
This document summarizes the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rules agreed to by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) in this Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005-85. A companion document, the
For effective dates see the separate documents, which follow.
The analyst whose name appears in the table below in relation to the FAR case. Please cite FAC 2005-85 and the specific FAR case number. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755.
Summaries for each FAR rule follow. For the actual revisions and/or amendments made by these rules, refer to the specific item numbers and subjects set forth in the documents following these item summaries. FAC 2005-85 amends the FAR as follows:
This interim rule amends the FAR to implement sections of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, to prohibit the Federal Government from entering into a contract with any corporation having a delinquent Federal tax liability or a felony conviction under any Federal law, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
This interim rule has no significant impact on the Government and contractors, including small business entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule adopting an interim rule published April 10, 2015, without change. The interim rule amended the FAR to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13672, entitled “Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity”. E.O. 13672 was signed July 21, 2014.
E.O. 11246, dated September 24, 1965, established requirements for non-discriminatory practices in hiring and employment for Federal contractors and subcontractors. The bases of discrimination prohibited by E.O. 11246 are race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. E.O. 13672 adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the prohibited bases of discrimination established by E.O. 11246. There is no significant impact on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing an interim rule amending the FAR to implement a final rule issued by the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) that revised the regulations at 41 CFR part 61 implementing the reporting requirements under the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act, as amended (VEVRAA) and the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) (Pub. L. 107-288). VEVRAA requires Federal contractors and subcontractors to annually report on the total number of their employees who belong to the categories of veterans protected under VEVRAA, as amended by the JVA, and the total number of those protected veterans who were hired during the period covered by the report. The VETS rule requires contractors and subcontractors to comply with its revised reporting requirements using the new Form VETS-4212, in lieu of the VETS-100 and VETS-100A, beginning with the annual report filed in 2015.
There is no significant impact on small entities imposed by the FAR rule.
This final rule amends the FAR to implement a statutory pilot program enhancing whistleblower protections for contractor employees at FAR subpart 3.9. An interim rule was published September 30, 2013. The interim rule created a new FAR section 3.908 to be used by title 41 agencies through January 1, 2017.
The four-year pilot program is mandated by section 828, entitled “Pilot Program for Enhancement of Contractor Employee Whistleblower Protections,” of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239, enacted January 2, 2013).
This rule has no significant impact on small business concerns.
This final rule amends the FAR by updating the Government file retention periods to conform with the retention periods in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule (GRS). Language is also added to instruct agencies that require a shorter retention period for certain records to request approval from NARA through the agency's record officer. This rule change does not place any new requirements on small entities; the only change is the timeframe for retention by the Government of Government records.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule adopting the interim rule published December 15, 2014, with change. The interim rule amended the FAR to implement Executive Order 13658 and a Department of Labor final rule issued on October 7, 2014, both entitled “Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors,” which established a new minimum wage for covered service and construction contracts of $10.10 per hour, as of January 1, 2015. The Executive Order minimum wage will be adjusted annually, by the Department of Labor. Contracting officers will include a clause in covered contracts and will adjust contract prices for the annual adjustments in the Executive Order minimum wage. Contractors shall consider any subcontractor request, including requests by small businesses subcontractors, for a subcontract price adjustment due to the annual adjustment in the Executive Order minimum wage.
There is no significant impact on small entities imposed by the FAR rule.
Editorial change is made at FAR 1.106.
Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005-85 is issued under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Unless otherwise specified, all Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and other directive material contained in FAC 2005-85 is effective December 4, 2015 except for item I and III which are effective February 26, 2016, and item V which is effective January 4, 2016.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Interim rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing an interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement sections of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, to prohibit the Federal Government from entering into a contract with any corporation having a delinquent Federal tax liability or a felony conviction under any Federal law, unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
Submit comments identified by FAC 2005-85, FAR Case 2015-011, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, at 202-219-0202 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-85, FAR Case 2015-011.
This interim rule amends the FAR to implement sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) and section 523 of Division B of the same act.
This rule requires that all offerors responding to Federal solicitations make a representation regarding whether the offeror is a corporation with a delinquent tax liability or a felony conviction under Federal law, as required by sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) (and similar provisions in subsequent appropriations acts).
When an offeror provides an affirmative response in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) to the representation, the contracting officer is required to request additional information from the offeror and notify the agency official responsible for initiating debarment or suspension action. The contracting officer shall not make an award to the corporation unless an agency suspending or debarring official has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and determined that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
This rule also adds a certification requirement regarding tax matters, in solicitations for which the resultant contract (including options) may have a value greater than $5,000,000, and that will use funds made available by Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) (and similar provisions in subsequent appropriations acts).
Agencies funded by these acts include the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, NASA, as well as some smaller agencies.
If the certification regarding tax matters is applicable, then the contracting officer shall not award any contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000, unless the offeror affirmatively certified in its offer to all the required certifications regarding tax matters in FAR Clause 52.209-12(b).
This certification will not be included in the annual representations and certifications, because it has very limited application. In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 1304, the certification included in this regulation is specifically required by statute, and therefore its inclusion in the FAR does not require the written approval of the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy.
This interim rule implements sections 744 and 745 of Division E, Title VII, and section 523 of Division B, Title V, of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. Sections 744 and 745 of Division E prohibit any Federal agency from using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by the Act or any other act to enter into a contract with a corporation that has delinquent unpaid taxes or has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months, unless the Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the government. Section 523 of Division B, which affects Commerce, Justice, NASA, and some smaller agencies, requires certification with regard to violations of certain tax matters.
The FAR Council and the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy have determined that it is not in the best interest of the United States to exempt contracts for the acquisition of commercial items (including commercially available off-the-shelf items) or acquisitions in amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (other than the certification requirement), because it imposes a minimal burden (just a representation or, in limited instances, a certification), in contrast to the benefit of avoiding awarding contracts to corporations that have delinquent unpaid taxes, or felony convictions for violations of Federal Law, or to prospective contractors with other violations relating to Federal tax matters. Tax liability is a serious matter and Congressional hearings (
This determination is consistent with the current coverage in paragraph (h)(4) of the FAR clause at 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items, which requires offerors to represent whether they have, within a three-year period preceding their offer, been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount that exceeds $3,500 for which the liability remains unsatisfied.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
Although DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect that this change will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601,
This action is necessary to implement sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the Consolidated and Continuing Further Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) (and similar provisions in subsequent appropriations acts), to prohibit using any of the funds made available under that or any other act to enter a contract with any corporation with any delinquent Federal tax liability or a felony conviction, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
The rule also implements section 523 of Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) (and similar provisions in subsequent appropriations acts). This section prohibits the award of any contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000, using funds appropriated under Division B of the Consolidated and Continuing Further Appropriations Act, 2015, unless the offeror affirmatively certifies that it has filed all Federal tax returns required during the three years preceding the certification; has not been convicted of a criminal offense under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and has not, more than 90 days prior to certification, been notified of any unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability remains unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the subject of an installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in default, or the assessment is the subject of a non-frivolous administrative or judicial proceeding.
The objective of the interim rule is to prohibit award to entities that are delinquent in the payment of Federal taxes or have been convicted of a felony under Federal law. The
Based on current data with regard to active registrants in the System for Award Management (SAM), the rule will apply to approximately 65,000 small business concerns, which are required to complete the annual representations and certifications at least once per year in order to keep their registration in SAM current.
The information collection requirement imposed by this rule is minimal—it is a brief representation, and in some cases also a certification. Each representation is estimated to require an average of six minutes to complete.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
DoD, GSA, and NASA were unable to identify any significant alternatives that would reduce the impact on small businesses and still meet the objectives of the statute. However, other than the potential for not receiving award if the small entity is delinquent in payment of Federal taxes or has been convicted of a felony, there is no significant economic impact on small entities because the information collection burden imposed by the rule is minimal.
The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2015-011), in correspondence.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) applies. The rule contains information collection requirements. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has cleared this information collection requirement under OMB Control Number 9000-0193, titled: Prohibition on Contracting with Corporations with Delinquent Taxes or a Felony Conviction.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .1 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
The annual reporting burden for 52.209-11 is estimated as follows:
Respondents: 352,000.
Responses per respondent: Approximately 1.01.
Total annual responses: 355,520.
Preparation hours per response: .1 hours.
Total response Burden Hours: 35,552.
The annual reporting burden for 52.209-12 is estimated as follows:
Respondents: 440.
Responses per respondent: 3.
Total annual responses: 1,320.
Preparation hours per response: .1 hours.
Total response Burden Hours: 132.
The average annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:
Total annual responses: 356,840.
Preparation hours per response: .1 hours.
Total response Burden Hours: 35,684.
Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than February 2, 2016 to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Requesters may obtain a copy of the supporting statement from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Divison (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0193, Prohibition on Contracting with Corporations with Delinquent Taxes or a Felony Conviction, in all correspondence.
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense (DoD), the Administrator of General Services (GSA), and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this interim rule without prior opportunity for public comment. This action is necessary because these appropriations act restrictions apply to all funds appropriated under the respective acts, and it is important to provide immediate direction to contracting officers, so that they do not inadvertently violate the conditions placed upon the expenditure of the funds. The effective date is set as February 26, 2016, to allow the Government to conform its procurement databases. However, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707 and FAR 1.501-3(b), DoD, GSA, and NASA will consider public comments received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 1, 4, 9, 12, and 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(a) * * *
(8) 52.209-11, Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law.
(b) The provision at 52.209-11, Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law, implements sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) (and similar provisions in subsequent appropriations acts). When an offeror provides an affirmative response in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of the provision at 52.209-11 or paragraph (q)(2)(i) or (ii) of provision 52.212-3, the contracting officer shall—
(1) Promptly, upon receipt of offers, request such additional information from the offeror as the offeror deems necessary in order to demonstrate the offeror's responsibility to the contracting officer (but see 9.405);
(2) Notify, in accordance with agency procedures (see 9.406-3(a) and 9.407-3(a)), the agency official responsible for initiating debarment or suspension action; and
(3) Not award to the corporation unless an agency suspending or debarring official has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
(c) If the provision at 52.209-12, Certification Regarding Tax Matters, is applicable (see 9.104-7(e)), then the contracting officer shall not award any contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000, unless the offeror affirmatively certified in its offer, as required by paragraph (b)(1), (2), and (3) of the provision.
(d) Offerors who do not furnish the representation or certifications or such information as may be requested by the contracting officer shall be given an opportunity to remedy the deficiency. Failure to furnish the representation or certifications or such information may render the offeror nonresponsible.
(d) The contracting officer shall insert the provision 52.209-11, Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law, in all solicitations.
(e) For agencies receiving funds subject to section 523 of Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) and similar provisions in subsequent appropriations acts, the contracting officer shall insert the provision 52.209-12, Certification Regarding Tax Matters, in solicitations for which the resultant contract (including options) may have a value greater than $5,000,000. Division B of the Consolidated and Continuing Further Appropriations Act, 2015 appropriates funds for the following agencies: The Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation, the Commission on Civil Rights, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Legal Services Corporation, the Marine Mammal Commission, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and the State Justice Institute.
(d) * * *
(4) Insert the provision at 52.209-12, Certification Regarding Tax Matters, as prescribed at 9.104-7(e).
The revision and addition read as follows:
(c)(1) * * *
(vii) 52.209-11, Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law. This provision applies to all solicitations.
As prescribed in 9.104-7(d), insert the following provision:
(a) As required by sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), and similar provisions, if contained in subsequent appropriations acts, the Government will not enter into a contract with any corporation that—
(1) Has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government; or
(2) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
(b) The Offeror represents that—
(1) It is [ ] is not [ ] a corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability; and
(2) It is [ ] is not [ ] a corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under a Federal law within the preceding 24 months.
As prescribed in 9.104-7(e), insert the following provision:
(a) This provision implements section 523 of Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), and similar provisions, if contained in subsequent appropriations acts.
(b) If the Offeror is proposing a total contract price that will exceed $5,000,000 (including options), the Offeror shall certify that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, it—
(1) Has [ ] filed all Federal tax returns required during the three years preceding the certification;
(2) Has not [ ] been convicted of a criminal offense under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(3) Has not [ ], more than 90 days prior to certification, been notified of any unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability remains unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the subject of an installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in default, or the assessment is the subject of a non-frivolous administrative or judicial proceeding.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(q)
(i) Has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government; or
(ii) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
(2) The Offeror represents that—
(i) It is [ ] is not [ ] a corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability; and
(ii) It is [ ] is not [ ] a corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under a Federal law within the preceding 24 months.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA have adopted as final, without change, an interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13672, entitled, “Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity,” and a final rule issued by the Department of Labor (DOL).
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-0650 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-85, FAR Case 2015-013.
DoD, GSA, and NASA published an interim rule in the
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (the Councils) reviewed the public comment in the development of the final rule. The respondent had pointed to an error in a clause number in the interim rule publication. The error in FAR 52.213-4 was corrected in a Technical Amendment to Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-82 published in the
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.
DoD, GSA, and NASA have prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604,
This rule is necessary to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13672, “Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity,” and a final rule issued by the DOL at 41 CFR part 60, which published in the
The interim rule, published on April 10, 2015, provides for a uniform policy to
No public comments were submitted in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. Therefore, there were no issues to assess and no changes were made to the interim rule.
The rule will apply to all contracts and subcontracts subject to the Equal Opportunity FAR clause 52.222-26, which is prescribed for all contracts over $10,000 that are not completely exempted. Using Fiscal Year 2013 Federal Procurement Data System and Federal Subcontract Reporting System data it is estimated that awards were made to 168,758 unique small businesses and that subcontracts were awarded to 61,816 unique small businesses. It is noted that there is likely a good measure of overlap between the unique small businesses that receive Federal awards and those that receive subcontract awards resulting in a likely overestimated total of 230,574.
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements involve regulatory familiarization and administrative costs associated with incorporating revised language into policies, instructions, notices to employees, and subcontracts. Other changes made by the rule, such as the prohibition of segregation of facilities are expected to have only minimal cost impacts as they do not require modification or construction of additional facilities, but rather to provide equal access to existing facilities. An analysis of estimated costs of the regulatory changes was prepared for the DOL final rule, which published in the
No significant alternatives to the rule were identified that would accomplish the stated objectives of the E.O. and the DOL implementing regulations. Every effort has been made to minimize the burdens imposed.
Interested parties may obtain a copy of the FRFA from the Regulatory Secretariat. The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does apply; however, the information collection authorization is under the DOL regulations and is assigned OMB Control Number 1250-0009, entitled, “Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors.” This collection under 1250-0009 will be incorporated into 1250-0001 and 1250-0003.
Government procurement.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 1, 22, and 52, which was published in the
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Interim rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing an interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a final rule issued by the Department of Labor's (DOL) Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), which replaced the VETS-100 and VETS-100A Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report forms with the new VETS-4212, Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report form.
Submit comments identified by FAC 2005-85, FAR Case 2015-036, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-0650 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-85, FAR Case 2015-036.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing an interim rule amending the FAR to implement a final rule issued by VETS of the DOL that was published in the
A. The VETS rule accomplished a number of revisions to the VEVRAA implementing regulations including the following:
1. Rescinded the regulations at 41 CFR part 61-250 that prescribed the reporting requirements applicable to Government contracts and subcontracts entered into before December 1, 2003 because those regulations were obsolete.
2. Changed the manner in which Federal contractors report on their employment of veterans. The previous VETS-100 and VETS-100A Reports did not ask contractors to provide the total number of protected veterans in their workforces nor who were hired during the reporting period. VETS found it would be preferable for contractors to report the total number of protected veterans employed and hired rather than the total number of veterans protected under each job category. Such data better assists contractors in complying with their affirmative action obligations under VEVRAA and in monitoring the success of their recruitment and outreach efforts to attract protected veterans. Accordingly, VETS revised the manner in which employment and hiring of protected veterans is reported.
3. Updated definitions. A previous rulemaking by DOL's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) that was published in the
4. Renamed the required annual report the “Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report VETS-4212” and updated methods of filing the report.
B. Following are the revisions required to the FAR text that implements the VEVRAA reporting requirements, as amended, in FAR subpart 22.13, the clause at 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans, and related clauses:
1. FAR 22.1300, Scope of subpart. Removes the reference to the rescinded regulation at 41 CFR part 61-250.
2. FAR 22.1302, Policy; 22.1303, Applicability; 22.1304, Procedures; and 22.1306, Department of Labor notices and reports. Updates the title of the report from VETS-100 or VETS-100A to VETS-4212 in FAR 22.1302 through FAR 22.1304. Additionally, updates terms, instructional language, and internet links in FAR 22.1304 and 22.1306.
3. FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items. Updates the currency of clause dates.
4. FAR 52.213-4, Terms and Conditions—Simplified Acquisitions (Other Than Commercial Items). Updates the currency of clause dates.
5. FAR 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans. Revises language in the clause to alphabetically order terms and conform to terms defined in FAR 22.1301, and provides updated instructional language and internet links.
6. FAR 52.222-38, Compliance with Veterans' Employment Reporting Requirements. Updates language and the VETS-4212 form number.
7. FAR 52.244-6, Subcontracts for Commercial Items. Updates the currency of clause dates.
C. This interim rule updates the OMB Control Numbers in FAR 1.106, OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The information collections imposed by VEVRAA as amended, and the VEVRAA reporting requirements are managed by Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and VETS and are cited in the FAR.
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.
The change is not expected 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,
This interim rule is being issued to implement changes to 41 CFR parts 61-250 and 61-300 that were published in the
The VETS rule revises the current regulations implementing 38 U.S.C. 4212. The VETS rule rescinded obsolete regulations at 41 CFR part 61-250, changed the manner in which Federal contractors report veterans' employment data, updated terminology, and revised the annual report, the report name, and methods of filing the report.
VETS used data in the VETS-100/100A Reporting System regarding reports on veterans' employment filed in 2012 to estimate the number of small entities that would be subject to its rule. The VETS rule applies to any industry represented by a Federal contractor with a contract of $100,000 or more. Therefore, VETS used the Small Business Administration's “fewer than 500 employees” limit when making an across-the-board size standard classification for estimating purposes. VETS estimated that 15,000 Federal contractors will be subject to the reporting requirements of the rule and of that, VETS approximated that the number of small entities that would be subject to the rule would be 8,000 (approximately 53 percent of the total Federal contractors impacted by the rule).
This FAR rule does not add any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are not aware of any significant alternatives to the rule which would accomplish the stated objectives of implementing the VETS final rule, while minimizing impact on small entities. DoD, GSA, and NASA do not have the flexibility of making any changes to the VETS rule, which has already been published for public comment and has taken effect as a final rule. There is no significant impact on small entities imposed by the FAR rule.
The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2015-036), in correspondence.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) applies. The rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense (DoD), the Administrator of General Services (GSA), and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this interim rule without prior opportunity for public comment. This action is necessary as the effective date of the VETS final rule was October 27, 2014. Contractors and subcontractors are required to comply with the new reporting requirements beginning with their annual report filed in 2015, which for some contractors and subcontractors is after September 30, 2015. Any further delays in implementing this rule may impact contractors' and subcontractors' ability to comply with the new reporting requirements. The effective date is set as February 26, 2016, to allow the Government to conform its procurement database. However, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707 and FAR 1.501-3(b), DoD, GSA, and NASA will consider public comments received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 1, 22, and 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(e) The regulations of the Secretary of Labor (41 CFR parts 60-300 and 61-300).
(b) Except for contracts for commercial items or contracts that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, contracting officers must not obligate or expend funds appropriated for the agency for a fiscal year to enter into a contract for the procurement of personal property and nonpersonal services (including construction) with a contractor that has not submitted the required annual VETS-4212, Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report (VETS-4212 Report), with respect to the preceding fiscal year if the contractor was subject to the reporting requirements of 38 U.S.C. 4212(d) for that fiscal year.
To verify if a proposed contractor is current with its submission of the VETS-4212 Report, the contracting officer may—
(a) Query the Department of Labor's VETS-4212 Database via the Internet at
(b) Contact the VETS-4212 customer support via email at
(b) The Act requires contractors and subcontractors to submit a report at least annually to the Secretary of Labor regarding employment of protected veterans (
(b) * * *
(31) 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans (FEB 2016) (38 U.S.C. 4212).
(e)(1) * * *
(viii) 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans (FEB 2016) (38 U.S.C. 4212).
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) 52.244-6, Subcontracts for Commercial Items (FEB 2016).
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans (FEB 2016) (38 U.S.C. 4212) (Applies to contracts of $150,000 or more).
The revisions read as follows.
(a)
(b) * * *
(1) The total number of employees in the contractor's workforce, by job category and hiring location, who are protected veterans (
(2) The total number of new employees hired during the period covered by the report, and of the total, the number of protected veterans (
(c) The Contractor shall report the above items by filing the VETS-4212 “Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report” (see “VETS-4212 Federal Contractor Reporting” and “Filing Your VETS-4212 Report” at
The revision reads as follows.
(c)(1) * * *
(viii) 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans (FEB 2016) (38 U.S.C. 4212).
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA have adopted as final, with changes, an interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a statutory pilot program enhancing whistleblower protections for contractor employees.
Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, at 202-219-0202, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-85, FAR Case 2013-015.
DoD, GSA, and NASA published an interim rule in the
Paragraph (a) of section 828 adds to title 41 a new section 4712 that contains the elements of the pilot program, which took effect by operation of law on July 1, 2013, and is effective through January 1, 2017. Paragraph (c) of section 828 suspends the pre-existing whistleblower protections in 41 U.S.C. 4705 “(w)hile section 4712 of this title is in effect . . .” (
The interim rule also clarified that the pilot authority applies to title 41 agencies and is inapplicable to DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard. The latter three agencies are covered by 10 U.S.C. 2409, which was amended by section 827 of the NDAA to impose permanent requirements very similar to the temporary requirements of the pilot program established in title 41.
Section 4712 and its implementing regulations (1) protect contractor or subcontractor employees against reprisal for activities protected by FAR 3.908-3(a) and (2) do not change any right or remedy otherwise available to the employee.
FAR 3.907, which addresses whistleblower protections under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, was unaffected by this rule.
One respondent submitted comments on the interim rule.
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) reviewed the response received in development of the final rule.
Only one response was received. A discussion of the response is provided as follows:
In general, FAR 3.905 is based on 41 U.S.C. 4705. Paragraph (c) of section 828 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, upon which this rule is based, suspends the pre-existing whistleblower protections in 41 U.S.C. 4705 “(w)hile section 4712 of this title is in effect . . .” However, the additional due process rights in current FAR 3.905(c), (d) and (e) were not based on 41 U.S.C. 4705, and have been incorporated in the final rule at 3.908-5(b), (c), and (d).
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD, GSA, and NASA have prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The interim rule, upon which the final rule is issued with change, was initiated to amend the FAR to implement a four-year pilot program to enhance the existing whistleblower protections for contractor employees at FAR subpart 3.9. The pilot program is mandated by section 828, entitled “Pilot Program for Enhancement of Contractor Employee Whistleblower Protections,” of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239, enacted January 2, 2013). The law establishes a pilot program for the period ending on January 1, 2017. Based on a reading of 41 U.S.C. 3101(c) and sections 827 and 828 of the NDAA for FY 2013, the pilot program will apply to all Federal agencies except DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard. Except for contracts funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (see 3.907), the current protections for contractor whistleblowers are established in law at 41 U.S.C. 4705; paragraph (c) of section 828 suspends 41 U.S.C. 4705 “(w)hile section 4712 of this title is in effect . . .” Paragraph (a) of section 828 adds the new section 4712 to title 41 that contains the elements of the pilot program and is effective until January 1, 2017.
With the exception of DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, as well as any element of the intelligence community, as defined in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401(a)(4)), the pilot program applies to the employees of Government contractors and their subcontractors. DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect the pilot program, which applies to the majority of entities doing business with the Government regardless of business size, to have a significant economic impact specific to small entities. The following information is provided as a means of estimating the overall numbers of entities to which the rule will apply. Based on Federal Procurement Data System reporting data, in Fiscal Year 2012, a Government-wide total of 273,970 new awards that exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold were made to small businesses and other than small businesses by agencies other than DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard. Of that total, 95,436 new award actions were made to small business entities. The remaining 178,534 award actions were made to other than small businesses.
A new contract clause is provided for the pilot program, in accordance with paragraph (d) of section 4712. The clause informs offerors that employees working on any contract awarded are subject to the whistleblower rights and remedies of the pilot program and requires the contractor (and its subcontractors), regardless of business size, to inform their employees in writing of employee whistleblower rights and protections under 41 U.S.C. 4712.
There is no requirement for small entities to submit any information under this clause. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
There are no practical alternatives that will accomplish the objectives of the rule.
Interested parties may obtain a copy of the FRFA from the Regulatory Secretariat. The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The final rule does not contain any 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).
Government procurement.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 3 and 52, which was published in the
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(a) Investigation of complaints will be in accordance with 41 U.S.C. 4712(b).
(b) Upon completion of the investigation, the head of the agency or designee shall ensure that the Inspector General provides the report of findings to—
(1) The complainant and any person acting on the complainant's behalf;
(2) The contractor alleged to have committed the violation; and
(3) The head of the contracting activity.
(c) The complainant and contractor shall be afforded the opportunity to submit a written response to the report of findings within 30 days to the head of the agency or designee. Extensions of time to file a written response may be granted by the head of the agency or designee.
(d) At any time, the head of the agency or designee may request additional investigative work be done on the complaint.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to update the Government contract file retention periods to conform with the retention periods in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule.
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-1448, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-85, FAR Case 2015-009.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule to update the Government file retention periods identified at FAR 4.805, Government contract files, to conform with the retention periods in the revised NARA General Records Schedule (GRS) 1.1, Financial Management and Reporting Records notice, which was published in the
NARA has undertaken a 5-year project to redraft the entire GRS to reflect the realities of current Government business practices and make it more useful in a world where almost all record keeping is electronic. NARA is charged with oversight of how all records of the Federal Government are managed and retained for business use and historical research. Its research on writing a new schedule for Financial Management and Reporting Records (GRS 1.1) was carried out under that authority.
NARA's research has shown that many agencies believe the break between procurements over and under the simplified acquisition threshold (6 years, 3 months versus 3 years retention) is no longer useful to them. NARA polled records management personnel at numerous agencies regarding records created in largely electronic acquisition systems. It also examined and tallied statistics regarding some 675,000 boxes of hard-copy records stored in the Federal Records Center system. As such, NARA eliminated the distinction between over and under the simplified acquisition threshold for purposes of record keeping and unified all retention under a single figure of 6 years under GRS 1.1, item 010.
The retention periods for Government contract records at FAR section 4.805 is changed to conform to the revised NARA GRS 1.1, as follows:
• Language at paragraph (a) regarding agency procedures for contract file disposal is removed.
• Language at paragraph (b) regarding retention periods for acquisitions conducted prior to July 3, 1995 is removed.
• Language is added at a new paragraph (c) to require agencies to request approval from NARA through the agency's records officer if a shorter retention is needed.
• In the Table at 4-1:
○ The retention period identified for records related to Contract Disputes statute actions is removed; the requirement is covered by paragraphs numbered (1) and (8).
○ The retention period for all contracts and related records is changed to 6 years after final payment.
○ The retention period for unsolicited proposals not accepted by the agency is changed to be in accordance with agency procedures.
“Publication of proposed regulations”, 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the statute which applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because it only changes the retention periods for Government contract files. These requirements affect only the internal operating procedures of the Government.
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
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant FAR revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1 and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.
The rule does not contain any 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).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR part 4 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(a) Agencies must prescribe procedures for the handling, storing, and disposing of contract files, in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule 1.1, Financial Management and Reporting Records. The Financial Management and Reporting Records can be found at
(b) If administrative records are mixed with program records and cannot be economically segregated, the entire file should be kept for the period of time approved for the program records. Similarly, if documents described in the following table are part of a subject or case file that documents activities that are not described in the table, they should be treated in the same manner as the files of which they are a part.
(c) An agency that requires a shorter retention period than those identified in Table 4-1 shall request approval from NARA through the agency's records officer.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA have adopted as final, with changes, an interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement the Executive Order (E.O.) Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, and a final rule issued by the Department of Labor (DOL).
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-0650 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-85, FAR Case 2015-003.
DoD, GSA, and NASA published an interim rule in the
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (the Councils) reviewed the public comment submitted in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comment follows.
The interim rule is converted to a final rule with only minor changes.
One respondent submitted one comment.
1. Provide adequate funding to ensure no workers with disabilities lose their jobs as a result of wage increases required by the rule.
2. Compile data regarding the number of such individuals displaced from employment or shifted to non-Federal contract work as a result of the rule.
3. Allow contractors to request a price adjustment for these individuals based on the difference between the current wage paid and the higher E.O. minimum wage, and provide an example of such a price adjustment in the rule.
With regard to the respondent's suggestions for mitigating negative impacts—
1. The E.O. did not provide for appropriation of funds to ensure that no workers with disabilities lose their jobs;
2. The E.O. did not require information or data collection methods in order to evaluate the rule's effects; therefore, this suggestion is beyond the scope of the E.O., and outside the implementation of the FAR rule; and
3. When contracts become subject to the E.O., the minimum wage is considered in the contract price either through the offer/bid process when an offeror is responding to a solicitation or, in the case of a modification, through appropriate consideration, in accordance with FAR conventions (see FAR 1.108(d)(3)), therefore explicit price adjustment language is not necessary. However, the rule does provide that contractors may request price adjustments for any worker based on an increase in labor costs resulting from the annual inflation increases in the E.O. minimum wage beginning January 1, 2016. This is depicted in the table at FAR 22.1904(b)(2). The Councils have revised the language at FAR paragraph 22.1904(b)(2) and in the table to specify that service or construction wage determination rates should only be considered if they are applicable to the worker. The revised language recognizes that workers with disabilities whose wages are calculated pursuant to special certificates issued under 29 U.S.C. 214(c) may not have been paid the full applicable service wage determination rate.
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 rule and, therefore, 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.
DoD, GSA, and NASA have prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory
This rule is needed to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13658, Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, dated February 12, 2014, and associated Department of Labor (DOL) regulatory requirements at 29 CFR part 10.
The interim rule published December 15, 2014 (and correction published December 18, 2014) established requirements for contractors with covered contracts containing the FAR clauses at 52.222-6, Construction Wage Rate Requirements, or 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards,
The objective of this rule is to implement the above referenced E.O. and DOL requirements. To accomplish this implementation, the interim rule established a new FAR clause, 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658, and mandated its inclusion in all covered contracts (and in subcontracts as indicated above) performed wholly, or in part, in the United States.
No public comments were submitted in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. Therefore, there were no issues to assess, and no changes to the rule were necessary.
This rule applies to new contracts and subcontracts at all tiers covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards statute, or the Wage Rate Requirements (Construction) statute, which require performance in whole or in part within the United States. When performance is in part within and in part outside the United States, the rule applies to the part of the contract or subcontract performed within the United States.
The rule applies to workers as defined at FAR 22.1901. As provided in that definition—
• Workers are covered regardless of the contractual relationship alleged to exist between the contractor or subcontractor and the individual;
• Workers whose wages are calculated pursuant to special certificates issued under 29 U.S.C. 214(c), are covered; and
• Workers registered in a bona fide apprenticeship program or training program registered with the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration, Office of Apprenticeship, or with a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the Office of Apprenticeship, are covered.
This rule does not apply to—
• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)-covered workers performing in connection with covered contracts,
• Individuals exempted from the minimum wage requirements of the FLSA under 29 U.S.C. 213(a) and 214(a) and (b), unless otherwise covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards statute or the Wage Rate Requirements (Construction) statute. These individuals include but are not limited to—
(i) Learners, apprentices, or messengers whose wages are calculated pursuant to special certificates issued under 29 U.S.C. 214(a);
(ii) Students whose wages are calculated pursuant to special certificates issued under 29 U.S.C. 214(b); and
(iii) Individuals employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1) and 29 CFR part 541).
Small businesses in the service or construction industry with covered FAR-based contracts or subcontracts for which the solicitation was issued on or after December 15, 2014 are impacted unless an exclusion listed above applies. The rule requires these contractors and subcontractors to raise their workers' minimum hourly rate to $10.10 per hour, beginning January 1, 2015, then annually adjust it thereafter, if necessary, based on the annual minimum wage rate determined by DOL.
Data available through the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for Fiscal Year 2013, reveals 16,264 contracts were awarded to unique small business vendors for services which contained the FAR clause at 52.222-41, Labor Standards. Additionally, 5,211 contracts were awarded to unique small business vendors for construction which contained the FAR clause at 52.222-6, Construction Wage Rate Requirements, for a total of 21,475 unique small businesses. Subcontract data is available from the USASpending Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS); however, this system does not distinguish small businesses from other than small businesses. Data for Fiscal Year 2013 shows there were a total of 20,127 subcontracts for services and construction reported, and of those, 5,391 were unique Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS). These 5,391 first tier unique subcontracts are approximately 25 percent of the 21,475 unique contracts. Given that first tier subcontracts account for 25 percent, then for estimating purposes, 20 percent of subcontracts have a second tier, 10 percent of second tier have a third tier, and 5 percent of third tier have a fourth tier. This calculation estimates the total number of subcontracts is 6,631. However, since the FSRS does not distinguish small businesses, this is likely an overestimate.
DOL noted in its final rule (79 FR 60634 at 60691) that the rule did not impose any additional notice or recordkeeping requirements on contractors and therefore, the burden for complying with the recordkeeping requirements was not adjusted. However, DOL submitted a revised information collection request (ICR), to the Office of Management and Budget to revise the existing Information Collection Request for control number 1235-0018 to incorporate the recordkeeping regulatory citations in its final rule.
DOL, in its final rule, estimated the average wage for affected employees is $8.79; thus, affected firms must raise the hourly wage for affected employees by $1.31 per hour. Additionally, contractors must adjust related payroll and unemployment taxes and fringe benefits. Under covered contracts, contractors are entitled to recover increases in labor costs resulting from the E.O. minimum wage requirements by including such costs in their offers and when requesting contract price adjustment under existing and future contracts for the additional costs related to the increase in the minimum wage rate for workers performing under the contract. DOL notes increases in economy and efficiency and expects these added costs to be offset by an increase in employee morale and productivity, reduced absenteeism, reduced supervisory costs, and reduced turnover.
To remind contractors of their obligation to ensure that subcontractor workers are paid in compliance with the minimum wage requirement, the following text was included in the FAR clause 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658:
(j)
The rule provides that subcontractors may be entitled to adjustments due to the new minimum wage and that contractors shall consider any subcontractor(s) requests for such price adjustment (52.222-55(b)(3)(ii)).
The rule does not address late payments to small business subcontractors, however pending FAR case 2014-004 implements section 1334 of the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-240) and the Small Business Administration's final rule at 78 FR 42391. The rule will require a contractor to self-report to the contracting officer when the contractor makes late or reduced payments to small business subcontractors.
Interested parties may obtain a copy of the FRFA from the Regulatory Secretariat. The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does apply; however, these changes to the FAR do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 1235-0018, Records to be Kept by Employers—Fair Labor Standards Act.
Government procurement.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 22 and 52, which was published in the
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(b)(1) The contractor may request a price adjustment only after the effective date of a new annual E.O. minimum wage determination published pursuant to paragraph (a). Prices will be adjusted only for increased labor costs (including subcontractor labor costs) as a result of the annual E.O. minimum wage, and for associated labor costs (including those for subcontractors. * * *
(2) The wage rate price adjustment under this clause is the lowest amount calculated by subtracting from the new E.O. wage rate the following: The current E.O. minimum wage rate; the current service or construction wage determination rate under the contract (if the wage rate is applicable to that worker); or the actual wage currently paid the worker. If the amount is zero or below, there will be no increase paid for this worker.
(a) * * *
(2) Contracting officers shall withhold payment at the direction of the Administrator.
(3) The contracting officer shall withhold payment, without a request from the Administrator, if the contractor fails to comply with the requirements in paragraph (e)(2) of 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 to furnish payroll records, until such time as the noncompliance is corrected.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(8) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (DEC 2015) (E.O. 13658).
(e)(1) * * *
(xv) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (DEC 2015) (E.O. 13658).
(e)(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(N) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (DEC 2015) (E.O. 13658).
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) 52.244-6, Subcontracts for Commercial Items (DEC 2015).
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (DEC 2015) (Executive Order 13658) (Applies when 52.222-6 or 52.222-41 are in the contract and performance in whole or in part is in the United States (the 50 States and the District of Columbia)).
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(2) The Contractor shall adjust the minimum wage paid, if necessary, beginning January 1, 2016, and annually thereafter, to meet the applicable annual E.O. minimum wage. The Administrator of the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (the Administrator) will publish annual determinations in the
(3)(i) The Contractor may request a price adjustment only after the effective date of the new annual E.O. minimum wage determination. Prices will be adjusted only for increased labor costs (including subcontractor labor costs) as a result of an increase in the annual E.O. minimum wage, and for associated labor costs (including those for subcontractors). Associated labor costs shall include increases or decreases that result from changes in social security and unemployment taxes and workers' compensation insurance, but will not otherwise include any amount for general and administrative costs, overhead, or profit.
(c)(1) * * *
(xi) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages under Executive Order 13658 (DEC 2015).
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
This document makes an amendment to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in order to make an editorial change.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405, 202-501-4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. Please cite FAC 2005-85, Technical Amendments.
In order to update a certain element in 48 CFR part 1 this document makes an editorial change to the FAR.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR part 1 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Small Entity Compliance Guide.
This document is issued under the joint authority of DOD, GSA, and NASA. This
December 4, 2015.
For clarification of content, contact the analyst whose name appears in the table below. Please cite FAC 2005-85 and the FAR case number. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755.
Summaries for each FAR rule follow. For the actual revisions and/or amendments made by these rules, refer to the specific item numbers and subjects set forth in the documents following these item summaries. FAC 2005-85 amends the FAR as follows:
This interim rule amends the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement sections of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, to prohibit the Federal Government from entering into a contract with any corporation having a delinquent Federal tax liability or a felony conviction under any Federal law, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
This interim rule has no significant impact on the Government and contractors, including small business entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule adopting an interim rule published April 10, 2015, without change. The interim rule amended the FAR to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13672, entitled “Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity”. E.O. 13672 was signed July 21, 2014.
E.O. 11246, dated September 24, 1965, established requirements for non-discriminatory practices in hiring and employment for Federal contractors and subcontractors. The bases of discrimination prohibited by E.O. 11246 are race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. E.O. 13672 adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the prohibited bases of discrimination established by E.O. 11246. There is no significant impact on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing an interim rule amending the FAR to implement a final rule issued by the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) that revised the regulations at 41 CFR part 61 implementing the reporting requirements under the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act, as amended (VEVRAA) and the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) (Pub. L. 107-288). VEVRAA requires Federal contractors and subcontractors to annually report on the total number of their employees who belong to the categories of veterans protected under VEVRAA, as amended by the JVA, and the total number of those protected veterans who were hired during the period covered by the report. The VETS rule requires contractors and subcontractors to comply with its revised reporting requirements using the new Form VETS-4212, in lieu of the VETS-100 and VETS-100A, beginning with the annual report filed in 2015.
There is no significant impact on small entities imposed by the FAR rule.
This final rule amends the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a statutory pilot program enhancing whistleblower protections for contractor employees at FAR subpart 3.9. An interim rule was published September 30, 2013. The interim rule created a new FAR section 3.908 to be used by title 41 agencies through January 1, 2017.
The four-year pilot program is mandated by section 828, entitled “Pilot Program for Enhancement of Contractor Employee Whistleblower Protections,” of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239, enacted January 2, 2013).
This rule has no significant impact on small business concerns.
This final rule amends the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) by updating the Government file retention periods to conform with the retention periods in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule (GRS). Language is also added to instruct agencies that require a shorter retention period for certain records to request approval from NARA through the agency's record officer. This rule change does not place any new requirements on small entities; the only change is the timeframe for retention by the Government of Government records.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule adopting the interim rule published December 15, 2014, with change. The interim rule amended the FAR to implement Executive Order 13658 and a Department of Labor final rule issued on October 7, 2014, both entitled “Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors,” which established a new minimum wage for covered service and construction contracts of $10.10 per hour, as of January 1, 2015. The Executive Order minimum wage will be adjusted annually, by the Department of Labor. Contracting officers will include a clause in covered contracts and will adjust contract prices for the annual adjustments in the Executive Order minimum wage. Contractors shall consider any subcontractor request, including requests by small businesses subcontractors, for a subcontract price adjustment due to the annual adjustment in the Executive Order minimum wage.
There is no significant impact on small entities imposed by the FAR rule.
Editorial change is made at FAR 1.106.
| 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 |